Which is funny because even a guy driving a forklift is supposed to be licensed. IMHO, problems like this often arise because there is no clear way of judging if a candidate for a job is good or bad. Of course IT is not the only industry with this problem; if we'd made some of those bankers / quants do some sort of qualification maybe the sub prime mess wouldn't of happened. Of course there is also the importance of balance; obviously you don't want to be told you can't use the 1m deep hotel pool because you never got your swimming license.
How about actually, you know, paying attention to what the kids in class are doing?
I don't really understand why every time a new technology comes along people think there needs to be new rules. Pornography and inappropriate images were not invented along with the internet. I can remember back when somebody would raid their fathers stash of playboys and bring one into school, and kids would be huddled around it. And, guess what, if a teacher or parents saw all these kids obviously up to no good, they would come over, and there would be hell to pay. Which still didn't stop kids from looking at pornography or doing dirty things.
Besides, why in the world do kids need access to computers in the classroom? When kids are working in a computer lab or something, have someone watching them. If you can't trust them to not look at porn, then they're not mature or old enough to be left alone with a computer.
This is a common problem in that most users lack the knowledge that you obviously have, and are willing to follow like blind sheeple, even with some very very bad advice.
This is by no means limited to IT. Any profession with specialists (with specialized knowledge) will have similar effects. Were you to go through medical school it's possible you'd disagree more with your doctor, but you simply lack the knowledge. Were you to go through law school, you might decide your lawyer is an idiot (and gives bad advice). Etc.
The difference is that whereas with medicine, bad advice will generate all kinds of law suits and maybe because people will die you have sort of an impetus to ensure your medical care is good (and there are boards to make sure practitioners meet some minimum standards regularly). With IT, probably the idiot who set up the network won't get fired, and because people do not have any real understanding, there will be no law suits, and nothing bad will happen to encourage better security practices.
That may be so but that's not what they said in the cabin.
They announced five times in slightly different ways "drug traffiking gets the death penalty, capital punishment in malaysia for drug traffiking, etc."
And on the boarding cards, getting off at the arrival gate, etc., there were signs saying the same thing in BIG RED LETTERS.
Pffff. I flew into KL a few weeks ago and I gotta say security was ridiculous. My plane had to stop to refuel and about five times before landing they warn you over the air that if you have any drugs on you when they land you'll be executed (the plane WAS from Amsterdam). Everyone had to disembark (and we weren't allowed to take any baggage). Then through metal detector + xray + pat down for everyone. Seemed a tad overkill for a plane refueling. I mean, I get security before entering a plane, but landing midlfight and asking everyone to disembark for another security screening?!?!?!?
On another note (and what I thought was interesting), I had one of the worst landings ever there. They didn't slow down to land and wheels down felt like the bottom of a loop-de-loop on a roller coaster. I wondered if this was due to the fact that we flew in for landing over mountains and they needed to cut a few thousand meters quickly.
Because while this pretty blue marble we live on is mostly always habitable, there are points in its history when mass extinction events wipe out the majority of the occupants and cause everyone to start over. Sometimes inhabitants (like us) cause our own mass extinction events (interesting fact, we're killing off enough species and messing the planet up enough that we are in a period of mass extinction).
So, for survivability of our species, we really should start expanding beyond our planet (and our solar system).
And, since we don't actually know when the next mass extinction will happen, the sooner we get off this rock the better.
Eh I'm not so sure about that. IANAE (I am not an electrician). However wouldn't any static created by the car discharge as you're getting out of the car (or at least there should be no difference in potential between you and the car)?
I remember seeing this explained somewhere that it's not that a cell phone makes the pump explode it's that if you touch your gas tank and have a lot of excess static electricity the pump explodes, and if you shock a gas tank on purpose you will blow it up. While a normal phone should not cause a static charge that would lead to an explosion, it's conceivable that some phone somewhere was malfunctioning leading to this "myth." Just like how, given all the people electrocuted while on their phone recently, you might erroneously believe talking on your cell phone while plugged in leads to death.
It's not a good thing. The patent system is broken. And although you might dislike the targets of the litigation that doesn't mean that society as a whole isn't hurt that these sorts of shenanigans are allowed.
Well what you are doing is blocking specific wavelengths of light. Most lasers emit light in a very very small bad. That's why the green or red from a laser pointer will always look the exact same shade.
Putting a shield that blocks specific wavelengths of light won't reduce your overall visibility, especially considering your landing strip lights are probably not any of the wave lengths involved....
It's the same concept as goggles meant to prevent getting your retinas burned out by lasers.
Until those same idiots you fired a stinger at decide to fire the laser from the roof of a school and you have a lot of bad PR. Or maybe the son of the chinese diplomat did it from the roof of the embassy and you have try to avoid going to war accidentally with the chinese.
Before firing any weapon meant to kill it's important to verify your target and who you're reducing to hamburger meat.
The key is problem that your boss believes you are like a construction worker.
You are more like an oncologist: highly trained individual who works to fix someone with cancer. If the chemo doesn't work the first time you give the patient another round or different treatment (and collect fees each time).
Or you are more like a chef. You cook up what the client ordered and if the client doesn't like the way you cook it they can send it back to be redone (but the restaurant still pays you for your time).
Or you are more like a mechanic. When someone brings their car to you, you fix it, and if something else breaks, you charge them again. When building a custom job you charge hourly, even if the customer brings back to rework something because the customer drove it like an idiot.
Or you are more like a bus driver... (the list goes on)
Bug free is completely possible. It's just not practical for you, because it would require:
A). Review each of the pages and each of the formats. B). Complete a separate parser for each different page format that can read the page format, bug free C). Create a program that can determine which parser needs to be run based on your library of different formats.
Now if you are really reading thousands of formats by thousands of different people probably the cost of investigating all of the pages and creating parsers might be tens or hundreds of thousands of hours of work. Which may make building a parser so expensive you'd be better off doing the work by hand. Or automating the work by hand with a process that gets things right 95% of the time.
So what you are talking about is that you've done a cost benefit analysis and it's cheaper to not be successful 100% of the time.
That's different then saying you CAN'T be successful 100% of the time.
In reality, if a mistake doesn't cause big issues (losing money / lives) most companies would rather put out buggy software because it's much faster produce and much cheaper.
Why is it we don't see banks blowing up all the time because their software was crap? Why don't their systems just reset and customers find their account accidentally goes to zero or they get lucky and there's a lot of extra cash in their account? Or why is it that airplanes which are 99.999% automated these days (computer assisted take off and landings + autopilot) drop from the sky due to bugs?
There are various programming methodologies that focus in on high quality software. They take a lot of time and effort, and many more employees then needed for a "get-it-out-as-quickly-as-possible" software campaign. They take a lot of time for things like code review and design and all of this adds a lot of overhead, which is why many employers where a failure does not create such a large cost aren't interested
In computer programming you compile as often as you need. One can test run sections of the code as needed to see what works and how it interacts.
You know the interesting thing is in no other engineering discipline do you have so many bugs as software engineering. Civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers know they have one shot to get things right. And the whole design / testing / execution process is about getting everything right, bug free, the first time.
Software engineering is a bit messed up. Instead bosses ask you to grow software "organically" without defining exactly what they want and developers go along with it and just "go with it"
It doesn't have to be that way though. Many methodologies exist to generate robust code. Banks, financial companies, and others with a big cost of bugs use this. But it also slows down the development cycle which is why people tolerate sloppy buggy code they can get out quickly
It's also a rule that you can't jay walk but spend a day in new york city and see if you can spot someone actually getting ticketed among the thousands of jay walkers.
Rules without penalties for breaking them are easy targets for people who would break them.
Reminds me of a humorous anecdote when I was working in my first job, as a cashier. A man came in to pay his bill, and rather than paying for the postage stamp ($0.25 back then) he drove an hour (definitely cost more in gas).
Make fun all you like but there are lots of people out there like that who get some entertainment out of nickel and diming...
Also, some airliners (KLM, I'm looking at you), charge you MORE for a single flight than they do for a return flight. When I moved country (and consequently only wanted to book a single), I had to book a return ticket which I simply didn't turn up for, otherwise it would have cost me £500 more. There may be some logic in what KLM is doing, but it feels like a big "fuck you" to me.
That's nothing new. Pretty much all the major carriers do it in my experience, at least here in Europe.
Which is, funny to say, probably the only shenanigan low cost carriers like ryan air and easy jet DON'T do!
And don't someone come up with the BS about everyone will sit around in blissful nirvana writing poetry or music or coding or go kayaking all day. It ain't going to happen.
Theoretically speaking, if you could get civilization to be sufficiently advanced with technology where we have no concern about energy and all our needs are met, you could have a "Star Trek" civilization without a problem.
However, the problem with this is between utopia and society today you have a painful growing period where there is a lot of trouble in such a transition.
Additionally, it could be such a society first requires a massive war / famine / natural disaster to get rid of the excess humanity so we can have 0.01% of the jobs available today.
Living in europe (with 2 EUR coins) I find that the coins are not much different then normal change once you get used to them. The key is you just have to get used to looking in your pocket for change instead of discarding them the second you get them...
How about because corporate recruiters and headhunters use it (and seem to like it)?
I'd delete my linked in profile in a second if not for the fact that a) I'm unemployed and hoping it'll help me get a job and b) my last job came via LinkedIn so I view it as a necessary evil and c) quite a few job postings require LinkedIn as the only method of application.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is funny because even a guy driving a forklift is supposed to be licensed. IMHO, problems like this often arise because there is no clear way of judging if a candidate for a job is good or bad. Of course IT is not the only industry with this problem; if we'd made some of those bankers / quants do some sort of qualification maybe the sub prime mess wouldn't of happened. Of course there is also the importance of balance; obviously you don't want to be told you can't use the 1m deep hotel pool because you never got your swimming license.
How about actually, you know, paying attention to what the kids in class are doing?
I don't really understand why every time a new technology comes along people think there needs to be new rules. Pornography and inappropriate images were not invented along with the internet. I can remember back when somebody would raid their fathers stash of playboys and bring one into school, and kids would be huddled around it. And, guess what, if a teacher or parents saw all these kids obviously up to no good, they would come over, and there would be hell to pay. Which still didn't stop kids from looking at pornography or doing dirty things.
Besides, why in the world do kids need access to computers in the classroom? When kids are working in a computer lab or something, have someone watching them. If you can't trust them to not look at porn, then they're not mature or old enough to be left alone with a computer.
This is a common problem in that most users lack the knowledge that you obviously have, and are willing to follow like blind sheeple, even with some very very bad advice.
This is by no means limited to IT. Any profession with specialists (with specialized knowledge) will have similar effects. Were you to go through medical school it's possible you'd disagree more with your doctor, but you simply lack the knowledge. Were you to go through law school, you might decide your lawyer is an idiot (and gives bad advice). Etc.
The difference is that whereas with medicine, bad advice will generate all kinds of law suits and maybe because people will die you have sort of an impetus to ensure your medical care is good (and there are boards to make sure practitioners meet some minimum standards regularly). With IT, probably the idiot who set up the network won't get fired, and because people do not have any real understanding, there will be no law suits, and nothing bad will happen to encourage better security practices.
That may be so but that's not what they said in the cabin.
They announced five times in slightly different ways "drug traffiking gets the death penalty, capital punishment in malaysia for drug traffiking, etc."
And on the boarding cards, getting off at the arrival gate, etc., there were signs saying the same thing in BIG RED LETTERS.
Pffff. I flew into KL a few weeks ago and I gotta say security was ridiculous. My plane had to stop to refuel and about five times before landing they warn you over the air that if you have any drugs on you when they land you'll be executed (the plane WAS from Amsterdam). Everyone had to disembark (and we weren't allowed to take any baggage). Then through metal detector + xray + pat down for everyone. Seemed a tad overkill for a plane refueling. I mean, I get security before entering a plane, but landing midlfight and asking everyone to disembark for another security screening?!?!?!?
On another note (and what I thought was interesting), I had one of the worst landings ever there. They didn't slow down to land and wheels down felt like the bottom of a loop-de-loop on a roller coaster. I wondered if this was due to the fact that we flew in for landing over mountains and they needed to cut a few thousand meters quickly.
Because while this pretty blue marble we live on is mostly always habitable, there are points in its history when mass extinction events wipe out the majority of the occupants and cause everyone to start over. Sometimes inhabitants (like us) cause our own mass extinction events (interesting fact, we're killing off enough species and messing the planet up enough that we are in a period of mass extinction).
So, for survivability of our species, we really should start expanding beyond our planet (and our solar system).
And, since we don't actually know when the next mass extinction will happen, the sooner we get off this rock the better.
Eh I'm not so sure about that. IANAE (I am not an electrician). However wouldn't any static created by the car discharge as you're getting out of the car (or at least there should be no difference in potential between you and the car)?
Why would a shark need to control another shark?
Naturally the protocol is Shark to Master (S2M)
You'd think Fins would be more susceptible to gill rot or swim bladder rupture or some other fishy disease.
I remember seeing this explained somewhere that it's not that a cell phone makes the pump explode it's that if you touch your gas tank and have a lot of excess static electricity the pump explodes, and if you shock a gas tank on purpose you will blow it up. While a normal phone should not cause a static charge that would lead to an explosion, it's conceivable that some phone somewhere was malfunctioning leading to this "myth." Just like how, given all the people electrocuted while on their phone recently, you might erroneously believe talking on your cell phone while plugged in leads to death.
It's not a good thing. The patent system is broken. And although you might dislike the targets of the litigation that doesn't mean that society as a whole isn't hurt that these sorts of shenanigans are allowed.
Well what you are doing is blocking specific wavelengths of light. Most lasers emit light in a very very small bad. That's why the green or red from a laser pointer will always look the exact same shade.
Putting a shield that blocks specific wavelengths of light won't reduce your overall visibility, especially considering your landing strip lights are probably not any of the wave lengths involved....
It's the same concept as goggles meant to prevent getting your retinas burned out by lasers.
Until those same idiots you fired a stinger at decide to fire the laser from the roof of a school and you have a lot of bad PR. Or maybe the son of the chinese diplomat did it from the roof of the embassy and you have try to avoid going to war accidentally with the chinese.
Before firing any weapon meant to kill it's important to verify your target and who you're reducing to hamburger meat.
The key is problem that your boss believes you are like a construction worker.
You are more like an oncologist: highly trained individual who works to fix someone with cancer. If the chemo doesn't work the first time you give the patient another round or different treatment (and collect fees each time).
Or you are more like a chef. You cook up what the client ordered and if the client doesn't like the way you cook it they can send it back to be redone (but the restaurant still pays you for your time).
Or you are more like a mechanic. When someone brings their car to you, you fix it, and if something else breaks, you charge them again. When building a custom job you charge hourly, even if the customer brings back to rework something because the customer drove it like an idiot.
Or you are more like a bus driver... (the list goes on)
Bug free is completely possible. It's just not practical for you, because it would require:
A). Review each of the pages and each of the formats.
B). Complete a separate parser for each different page format that can read the page format, bug free
C). Create a program that can determine which parser needs to be run based on your library of different formats.
Now if you are really reading thousands of formats by thousands of different people probably the cost of investigating all of the pages and creating parsers might be tens or hundreds of thousands of hours of work. Which may make building a parser so expensive you'd be better off doing the work by hand. Or automating the work by hand with a process that gets things right 95% of the time.
So what you are talking about is that you've done a cost benefit analysis and it's cheaper to not be successful 100% of the time.
That's different then saying you CAN'T be successful 100% of the time.
In reality, if a mistake doesn't cause big issues (losing money / lives) most companies would rather put out buggy software because it's much faster produce and much cheaper.
Bollocks.
Why is it we don't see banks blowing up all the time because their software was crap? Why don't their systems just reset and customers find their account accidentally goes to zero or they get lucky and there's a lot of extra cash in their account? Or why is it that airplanes which are 99.999% automated these days (computer assisted take off and landings + autopilot) drop from the sky due to bugs?
There are various programming methodologies that focus in on high quality software. They take a lot of time and effort, and many more employees then needed for a "get-it-out-as-quickly-as-possible" software campaign. They take a lot of time for things like code review and design and all of this adds a lot of overhead, which is why many employers where a failure does not create such a large cost aren't interested
In computer programming you compile as often as you need. One can test run sections of the code as needed to see what works and how it interacts.
You know the interesting thing is in no other engineering discipline do you have so many bugs as software engineering. Civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers know they have one shot to get things right. And the whole design / testing / execution process is about getting everything right, bug free, the first time.
Software engineering is a bit messed up. Instead bosses ask you to grow software "organically" without defining exactly what they want and developers go along with it and just "go with it"
It doesn't have to be that way though. Many methodologies exist to generate robust code. Banks, financial companies, and others with a big cost of bugs use this. But it also slows down the development cycle which is why people tolerate sloppy buggy code they can get out quickly
And what happens if you break the rules?
It's also a rule that you can't jay walk but spend a day in new york city and see if you can spot someone actually getting ticketed among the thousands of jay walkers.
Rules without penalties for breaking them are easy targets for people who would break them.
Reminds me of a humorous anecdote when I was working in my first job, as a cashier. A man came in to pay his bill, and rather than paying for the postage stamp ($0.25 back then) he drove an hour (definitely cost more in gas).
Make fun all you like but there are lots of people out there like that who get some entertainment out of nickel and diming...
Also, some airliners (KLM, I'm looking at you), charge you MORE for a single flight than they do for a return flight. When I moved country (and consequently only wanted to book a single), I had to book a return ticket which I simply didn't turn up for, otherwise it would have cost me £500 more. There may be some logic in what KLM is doing, but it feels like a big "fuck you" to me.
That's nothing new. Pretty much all the major carriers do it in my experience, at least here in Europe.
Which is, funny to say, probably the only shenanigan low cost carriers like ryan air and easy jet DON'T do!
And don't someone come up with the BS about everyone will sit around in blissful nirvana writing poetry or music or coding or go kayaking all day. It ain't going to happen.
Theoretically speaking, if you could get civilization to be sufficiently advanced with technology where we have no concern about energy and all our needs are met, you could have a "Star Trek" civilization without a problem.
However, the problem with this is between utopia and society today you have a painful growing period where there is a lot of trouble in such a transition.
Additionally, it could be such a society first requires a massive war / famine / natural disaster to get rid of the excess humanity so we can have 0.01% of the jobs available today.
Asking a recruiter for a public key, while satisfying probably didn't help with your chance of getting a job.
There's no need for Recruiters and HR to have the kind of technical skills you need for your position.
Slashdot is only worthless because of anonymous fuckheads who insist on posting crap like this on completely unrelated subjects.
Seriously get over yourself.
Living in europe (with 2 EUR coins) I find that the coins are not much different then normal change once you get used to them. The key is you just have to get used to looking in your pocket for change instead of discarding them the second you get them...
How about because corporate recruiters and headhunters use it (and seem to like it)?
I'd delete my linked in profile in a second if not for the fact that a) I'm unemployed and hoping it'll help me get a job and b) my last job came via LinkedIn so I view it as a necessary evil and c) quite a few job postings require LinkedIn as the only method of application.