Keep in mind most kids straight out of college have a lot less skills than they think. Most good companies know this. Along with the tech foundation the education should give you (allthough I still have my doubs if I compare CS graduates to for examlpe mechanical engineers). One of the big differences is in the other areas, being able to deal with people, situations etc. This will allow you to sell yourself and to grow because you have the social skills (among others like an idea of what doing a job acuall means, and that all jobs have a downside etc. etc.).
This growth will not nly help you getting a good position once yo get out of college, but also will allow you to grow into more interresting places.
The Parent probably gives the best advice ou can get.
It worked for me, I followed the following advice, no CS degree, but something more mature (went for mechanical engneering, and work outside of IT, did some sales, worked at a gas station, organised events for performance artists and did some organisational work for my college, this work made me spent 2 year longer than planned in college)later on it turned out I could quite quickly pretty much chose what wanted to do and where. I found that the hardcore IT guys would be stuck in their careers while I pretty much picked the projects I wanted to work on (including ones o the other side of the globe)...
Is it any easier if a "paper" election is rigged? I really have my doubts.
It will not be hard to add a "receipt" function to a voting machine, but again, I don't think the additional value would really make the election less vulnerable.
I get your point, but personally I like to have 3 devices. I want to have the option of not having one specific device with me. For example my PDA holds my business contacts and notes, I do mind losing that in a club, while I do want to bring my phone (which does not contain such sensitive information).
It seems that ReiserFS really depends on 1 guy. For any company this is a risk. It sounds reasonable to me to stay away from products and features like that.
I think there is a big difference between NK now and in the 50s. And there is a huge difference between Germany in the 30s and NK now.
Especially Germany in the 30s was a technological power, they had a really advanced and well trained army, and a working war industry (eventough they denied it).
NK may be capable of building nukes (which is 40s technology), and does not seem to have an industry able to support a sustained war (as far as we can tell).
I want the regime there leave, and I definately find it evil, and I feel their neighbours should be helped protecting themselves. Still the comparison to the 30s appeasement is in my opinion not valid since Germany was a real threat. I do not believe NK now truely is capable of sustaining a war without outside help.
I do feel the insights of someone closer to NK than myself about the regime not being able to survive a war is interresting and worthy of looking into.
About other people's "speak" like Corp speak, marketing speak, finance speak etc...
All these "speaks" have their purpose, just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose, even if you would not understand that purpose...
users get frustrated with geek speak, geeks get frustrated with manager speak... Just stop complaining, it seems to be a fact of life...
If what you say is completely true, a new label will rise (or maybe more, or maybe individual artists) and crush the existing labels using this brilliant viral marketing.
Actually that sounds good to me.
Always remember if this is sych a good idea it will happen or you have to ask yourself why it doesn't/didn't (maybe reality just works slightly differently...)
They will get it once the market shows them, or tehre was noting to "get" in the first place...
A successfull service actually supports the customers, gives them the service they expect, so I would think about who you would be willing to help, do you feel you can fix any configuration? Or would you want to have a look at the ste-up first.
This last approach would allow you to get a subscription based thing going.
A combination of the two could be ideal.
I can't give advice on pricing without understanding more about the clients and the area you're in.
Even MUDs in the old days, were very very tight communities. The MUD I played for a long time (Kobramud) actually was a very tight community, quite a few relationsships and marriages started there...
I think that any large enough, virtual world that actually functions (regardless of graphics/text or theme) will become a virtual community.
How much one loses him/her serf in this is up to the player, I've seen quite a few people lose themselves in a MUD.
Im my experience "vendor lock in", and "switching cost" will always occur, no matter what choice is made. Even if the all open OSS way of working is addapted, money is spent on swicthing and "lock in".
If a strategical technical decision is made this means some kind of lock-in, and switching away from it always costs money. These costs should be part of the strategy...
Having done this several times for a number of different companies I can only conclude that the impact of whatever lock-in will always be tehre, and the original choice does not matter for that (this includes open standards, open source etc. switching to another open sollution will mean spending significant money...).
The idea that vendor lock-in is worse than any other lock-in is a myth in my experience, and most comments here on/. only show that the people commenting are actually not knowledgable, and mainly looking at it from their tech spot, thinking they see the whole picture..
A strategical choice has been made (we are going to use Linux). This means a lot of other things (among which he development process) are impacted.
If you make a strategical choice you need to be aware of the overall impact (think about, processes, legal, financial, implied limitations etc.). Once someone finds himself in the situation described the best thing to do is to sit down and redo the strategical analysis.
This is also why it s funny to see people offering practical "advice" while his is a strategical mistake (they are 2 different areas, and is he strategy is not well defined, you are bound to be in trouble some day down the road....).
The type of issues you will run into are different per situation, this is what tend to call "the law of preservation of trouble", whatever choice you make, will introduce a different problem, the total amount of problems are not that different, just the type (in other words chosethe trouble you can deal with with the best).
Again, this is a strategy problem, not a technical, procedural problem...
What you do see here is what does happen if someone manages to convince management about a strategy which he can only see the tech part of (in other words is an ultracrepidarian).
You really should be stopping and look at what you are doing. How you want to manage it should be part of the strategy, and actually should have been part of deciding to use Linux (not in detail, but strategically).
So my advice, hold on, sit down and look at what you expect to produce and what you would need to get there. From there you can find out what you would need.
You will probably run into some issues, but that's just what happens, there is no ideal situation.
I am sure that in your cases you are right, which actually is my point, there are many situations for which you have to chose the right tools.
Gotchas after updates can be equally big on any OS, depending on what exactly you are doing...
Overhere we do "real work" on many OSes, just depending on the situation...
In the end, it pretty much depends on the company and the function, in some cases I like vendor lock in (escpecially with niche applications) where I can pay them money (lots of money) and make any gotchas their problem. This means moving form tech management to supplier management, in some cases this does pay off...
Again, you alwais lock in, and you need to pick your own lock-in together with other issues. I tend to call this the law of preservation of trouble (does not matter what you chose, the total amout of trouble is equal, just the type differs, so chose the trouble that bothers you the least.). I've been around for a while and I found there is no absolute better or worse, no absolute acceptable or unacceptable lock-in, just choices...
I often read about vendor lock in, and wonder if people actually realise what they are saying.
ANY choice made in IT means some kind of lock-in. If I go all OSS I lock myself into something else. Of course one could argue that with OSS you can alwais "fix or change it yourself", but then again, most companies and users do not want to do that, they want to use functionality. By chosing OSS you lock yourself into that path, which is effectively no different from the vendor path.
Sometimes it can me more cost effective to do this, sometimes the option with "evil vendor lock in" is actually more cost effective.
The longer I am in IT the more just pick the tool for the fucntion. looking at the staff available, strategy of the company etc..
Vendor lock in as such is a myth, there is alwais a path that's being closed with every choice of tool...
To be honest, in a lot of cases MS actually provides a good sollution...
Slashdot Mirror
in 1971 Xmass was worse for gadgets (IMHO) ;-)
Keep in mind most kids straight out of college have a lot less skills than they think. Most good companies know this. Along with the tech foundation the education should give you (allthough I still have my doubs if I compare CS graduates to for examlpe mechanical engineers). One of the big differences is in the other areas, being able to deal with people, situations etc. This will allow you to sell yourself and to grow because you have the social skills (among others like an idea of what doing a job acuall means, and that all jobs have a downside etc. etc.).
This growth will not nly help you getting a good position once yo get out of college, but also will allow you to grow into more interresting places.
The Parent probably gives the best advice ou can get.
It worked for me, I followed the following advice, no CS degree, but something more mature (went for mechanical engneering, and work outside of IT, did some sales, worked at a gas station, organised events for performance artists and did some organisational work for my college, this work made me spent 2 year longer than planned in college)later on it turned out I could quite quickly pretty much chose what wanted to do and where. I found that the hardcore IT guys would be stuck in their careers while I pretty much picked the projects I wanted to work on (including ones o the other side of the globe)...
Is it any easier if a "paper" election is rigged? I really have my doubts.
It will not be hard to add a "receipt" function to a voting machine, but again, I don't think the additional value would really make the election less vulnerable.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Ah well, but those systems are vulnerable to similar things as those voting computers...
I get your point, but personally I like to have 3 devices. I want to have the option of not having one specific device with me. For example my PDA holds my business contacts and notes, I do mind losing that in a club, while I do want to bring my phone (which does not contain such sensitive information).
True, though the noise and discussions I've seen around the arrest suggest he _is_ the key person.
(I could be wrong, like I said it seems).
And Then the question is is one of those guys actually able to fill in that role.
It seems that ReiserFS really depends on 1 guy. For any company this is a risk. It sounds reasonable to me to stay away from products and features like that.
Yeah but you're saying something that could be seen as favourable for MS en unfavourable for Apple.
So someone has to go and call you ignorant, and most of the time you get modded down....
Too bad tho
I think there is a big difference between NK now and in the 50s. And there is a huge difference between Germany in the 30s and NK now.
Especially Germany in the 30s was a technological power, they had a really advanced and well trained army, and a working war industry (eventough they denied it).
NK may be capable of building nukes (which is 40s technology), and does not seem to have an industry able to support a sustained war (as far as we can tell).
I want the regime there leave, and I definately find it evil, and I feel their neighbours should be helped protecting themselves. Still the comparison to the 30s appeasement is in my opinion not valid since Germany was a real threat. I do not believe NK now truely is capable of sustaining a war without outside help.
I do feel the insights of someone closer to NK than myself about the regime not being able to survive a war is interresting and worthy of looking into.
Do you have any (credible) source for this, I'm curious since I missed that completely then...
If that is the case it would be very interresting, if not the parent is quite right.
About other people's "speak" like Corp speak, marketing speak, finance speak etc...
...
All these "speaks" have their purpose, just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose, even if you would not understand that purpose
users get frustrated with geek speak, geeks get frustrated with manager speak... Just stop complaining, it seems to be a fact of life...
I totally agree, best beer in the world, best food in the world (IMHO).
And of couse Home of Jacky Ickx, that guy is one of my great heroes...
If what you say is completely true, a new label will rise (or maybe more, or maybe individual artists) and crush the existing labels using this brilliant viral marketing.
Actually that sounds good to me.
Always remember if this is sych a good idea it will happen or you have to ask yourself why it doesn't/didn't (maybe reality just works slightly differently...)
They will get it once the market shows them, or tehre was noting to "get" in the first place...
I was just thinking about that...
I don't even think it's funny, more insightfull, I have not seen anyone respond and expalin the difference to me...
(People have tried to "explain" the difference but no one has managed to do this using coherent reasoning....)
A successfull service actually supports the customers, gives them the service they expect, so I would think about who you would be willing to help, do you feel you can fix any configuration? Or would you want to have a look at the ste-up first.
This last approach would allow you to get a subscription based thing going.
A combination of the two could be ideal.
I can't give advice on pricing without understanding more about the clients and the area you're in.
Even MUDs in the old days, were very very tight communities. The MUD I played for a long time (Kobramud) actually was a very tight community, quite a few relationsships and marriages started there...
I think that any large enough, virtual world that actually functions (regardless of graphics/text or theme) will become a virtual community.
How much one loses him/her serf in this is up to the player, I've seen quite a few people lose themselves in a MUD.
Im my experience "vendor lock in", and "switching cost" will always occur, no matter what choice is made. Even if the all open OSS way of working is addapted, money is spent on swicthing and "lock in".
/. only show that the people commenting are actually not knowledgable, and mainly looking at it from their tech spot, thinking they see the whole picture..
If a strategical technical decision is made this means some kind of lock-in, and switching away from it always costs money. These costs should be part of the strategy...
Having done this several times for a number of different companies I can only conclude that the impact of whatever lock-in will always be tehre, and the original choice does not matter for that (this includes open standards, open source etc. switching to another open sollution will mean spending significant money...).
The idea that vendor lock-in is worse than any other lock-in is a myth in my experience, and most comments here on
It is actually the only good advice...
A strategical choice has been made (we are going to use Linux). This means a lot of other things (among which he development process) are impacted.
If you make a strategical choice you need to be aware of the overall impact (think about, processes, legal, financial, implied limitations etc.). Once someone finds himself in the situation described the best thing to do is to sit down and redo the strategical analysis.
This is also why it s funny to see people offering practical "advice" while his is a strategical mistake (they are 2 different areas, and is he strategy is not well defined, you are bound to be in trouble some day down the road....).
The type of issues you will run into are different per situation, this is what tend to call "the law of preservation of trouble", whatever choice you make, will introduce a different problem, the total amount of problems are not that different, just the type (in other words chosethe trouble you can deal with with the best).
Again, this is a strategy problem, not a technical, procedural problem...
What you do see here is what does happen if someone manages to convince management about a strategy which he can only see the tech part of (in other words is an ultracrepidarian).
And the funny thing is...
Lots of people are providing "advice", which makes one wonder, would they have done a better job???
You really should be stopping and look at what you are doing. How you want to manage it should be part of the strategy, and actually should have been part of deciding to use Linux (not in detail, but strategically).
So my advice, hold on, sit down and look at what you expect to produce and what you would need to get there. From there you can find out what you would need.
You will probably run into some issues, but that's just what happens, there is no ideal situation.
Hear hear, someone who knows what he is talking about...
I am sure that in your cases you are right, which actually is my point, there are many situations for which you have to chose the right tools.
Gotchas after updates can be equally big on any OS, depending on what exactly you are doing...
Overhere we do "real work" on many OSes, just depending on the situation...
In the end, it pretty much depends on the company and the function, in some cases I like vendor lock in (escpecially with niche applications) where I can pay them money (lots of money) and make any gotchas their problem. This means moving form tech management to supplier management, in some cases this does pay off...
Again, you alwais lock in, and you need to pick your own lock-in together with other issues. I tend to call this the law of preservation of trouble (does not matter what you chose, the total amout of trouble is equal, just the type differs, so chose the trouble that bothers you the least.). I've been around for a while and I found there is no absolute better or worse, no absolute acceptable or unacceptable lock-in, just choices...
"you have lock in" is no real world argument.
I often read about vendor lock in, and wonder if people actually realise what they are saying.
ANY choice made in IT means some kind of lock-in. If I go all OSS I lock myself into something else. Of course one could argue that with OSS you can alwais "fix or change it yourself", but then again, most companies and users do not want to do that, they want to use functionality. By chosing OSS you lock yourself into that path, which is effectively no different from the vendor path.
Sometimes it can me more cost effective to do this, sometimes the option with "evil vendor lock in" is actually more cost effective.
The longer I am in IT the more just pick the tool for the fucntion. looking at the staff available, strategy of the company etc..
Vendor lock in as such is a myth, there is alwais a path that's being closed with every choice of tool...
To be honest, in a lot of cases MS actually provides a good sollution...
You mean like a microkernel, check out www.minix3.org that should give a good basis for something like that. Tanenbaum has vision ;-)
And also to protect the poor astrologers of the world...
Took them a while to integrate the 9th planet into their "age old knowledge", turns out it's not a planet...
On the other hand, if more planets were found, they would have a hard time explaining that thse are also use din their age old knowledge.......