My god, you are right! We have to alert our leaders... All payphones must be eliminated. I'll call the office of homeland security. Everybody else, call your local phone company and encourage them to imediatly disable every payphone in the country. Think of the children!
Well, you've pulled the idea of racism into the discussion, but I'm not going to go for that bait. What I would like to point out is that you couch your reply in the shining wrapper of "globalization". I would put it to you that what it currently happening is NOT globalization. It is instead a mechanism being used by various powerful groups to further their economic goals. You can't call it globalization until I, as an individual can freely move from one country to another and secure gainful employment therin. Currently, a large company or corporation can easily outsource my job to India or various other countries around the world, but I cannot follow my job to one of these countries. I can't go get a job in China, India or Russia. So I, as an individual, am not on a level playing field.
So to put it simply, everyone can get all hot and sweaty about "globalization", but what we currently have is not globalization. It is instead, simply a mechanism which detrimental to one group of people to the benefit of another. Is the slashdot crowd opposed to that sort of thing? In general, yes. So, it would seem obvious that why the slashdot crowd is opposed to the current state of affairs.
Anytime you're moving and your eyes aren't on the road, you're putting yourself and everyone around you at much greater risk. When my regime rises to power, everyone will be required to ride a motorcycle for 1 year as their only motor vehicle before getting a license for a car. Weed out the bad drivers...
Of course you will make an exception for Cadillac and Volvo drivers wont you? I mean, they will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes?!? Right? Please? For the good of all us motorcyclists?!?!
As a previous poster pointed out, it was originaly called "Duck" tape. And it was never designed to be used on ducts. It was a waterproof tape developed to seal Army ammo cans, hence the name "Duck" tape (as in waterproof, like a duck).
It didn't start getting used to seal duct work until well after WW II. And, as you pointed out, it's a poor choice for that task. On the other hand, it is great to have around in the pits at the track (where it is often referred to as 100-mile-an-hour tape).
The replies to your question have all been very lucid and concise. However, none of them has come out and said what they really mean. Please allow me to drive the point home.
Whenever you are doing a large capital project (and yes, when the money is coming out of my bank account, a home network is a large capital project) you sometimes spend more money up-front to save money in the long-run. Cable is cheap compared to labor and the other associated costs of installing it. So you pull a higher grade than you need. In fact, in larger installations, you sometimes pull more than you need as well. Then if you have a cable failure, between a couple of buildings for example, you simply abandon the old cable and energize one of the spares. As another poster pointed out, it's about seeing "the big picture". Hope this helps.
And of course, the worst part is, since the school demonstrated a profound lack of security... It is an even money bet that they had no logging or auditing of access or changes. Therefore all of the information in the system is now suspect, and there is no telling how many individuals did obtain copies of sensitive documents before this news story broke.
The Superintendent needs to cash a reality check NOW! If nothing else, her attitude shows that she has no understanding of the seriousness of the issue, and should not be allowed to set technology policy, or influence it for that matter, in the future.
Oh, my kingdom for a Mod Point. Great post, and the facts as you laid them out are 100% correct.
[RANT] Folks on SlashDot (and in general society) have bought into the lie that if someone wrongs you financially, there are legal recourses. Hire a lawyer and sue the bastards, call the police and have the perpitrators arrested. The truth of course is that these recourses don't exist in most cases. You can't sue someone unless you can afford to hire a lawyer (most lawyers won't take contingency cases unless they believe they can easily win a judgement of at least 100K). You can't get law enforcement to do anything unless it falls into one of their well-defined catecories. End of story. [/RANT]
I would encourage thos of you who live in California and find his comments to be a "crock" as the author of this thread so aptly put it, to go to his web site and drop him a note. Let him know how you feel about his decsion, and about the fact that he is complaining about something that is legal under current law. And then of course point out to him, that if he doesn't like it, maybe he should change the law.
I'm going to have to go and take a shower now. Reading politicians web sites makes me feel sooo dirty.
The sad thing about the "sue the bastards" option, is that even if your employer really has done something heinous, you probably won't be able to sue them. Being able to sue an employer requires that you either have enough money in the bank to pay legal fees for a couple of years, or you have to find a lawyer that will take the case on contingency. That usually means that they will only take the case if they feel it is a "slam dunk" and will have a gross settlement of over $250,000. It is sad but true, the only people who get justice in this type of situation are those who can afford to pay for it.
"Unions are just a plain bad idea for technical skilled people, especially the most skilled people."
Um, why? This is a very definite statement. Do you really think you can back it up with facts?
"I've been an individual contributor, a manager, and a team leader all within the same company, usually going where the need was greatest or my skills matched. About half of my managers were engineers (and some were good managers) and they too changed roles from time to time. Unions assume that it's management vs. the employees."
Ok, you mention that you were a manager, and I'm assuming that this is to infer that you understand both perspectives. But, you also point out that you worked as an individual contributor. Ok, that means you were a middle manager at best. You don't make policy at that level, you carry it out. So you don't really have a perspective on both sides of issue, and you aren't the one who a union would be negotiating with. Sorry, but the folks the union would be talking with would be C-level or at least EVP. And if you think people at that level consider themselves part of "one big company family", I've got some ocean front property in Kansas you might like. Oh, and those stock options you had as part owner in the company... did they fully vest for you, at no cost, when you were laid-off? No? That's a shame, I bet if you got a look at the contract of any of the EVP's at the company you'd find that is one of the perks that they get.
As far as your "long-term career and compensation prospects", you might want to read this UC Davis report to Congress regarding hiring and retention in the IT field. I hate to break it to you, but you don't have ANY long-term prospects in IT or programming.
I've posted this a couple of time already, but hey, there is so much misinformation out there, facts sometimes need to be repeated till they sink in. Based on your statements about H1-B employees, it appears you are either misinformed or you are choosing to purposfully misinform others. In either case,I would suggest you and others read the following UC Davis prepared Congressional testimony on H1-B visas and the IT programming sector. It pretty much says that everything in your post is incorrect.
For what it is worth, if that was w/in the last 5 to 10 years, your teacher was buying into a myth. Maybe I'll get modded up so more people can find this link, maybe not. But this is one of the most informative documents I have ever read concerning IT, programmers, and overseas outsourcing. And unlike the drivel that comes from the popular press, this document seems to cover the fact pretty well.
You speak well, but you obviously don't understand the.Net framework. May be you should take some time and work with.Net to see for yourself that it's none of the above.
You write like a star, but you think like an idiot.
Wow, those are some pretty strong words. Ok, when you get to college sparky, take debate 101 and your prof will tell you that insulting those you don't agree with will never get them to come around to your point of view. Also, when you take history 101, you will probably be told that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Based on the past behavior of MS, why do you think anyone would believe they would behave differently with their.NET product?
Yes, you'll probably call me something worse than an idiot this time... but remember if you get to nasty I'll have to call your mom and have her wash your mouth out with soap.
Actually, as many other posts have pointed out, Microsoft has been bereft of technological innovation during the bulk of their existence. Your comment about the initial release of IE is only partially correct. As usual, MS was blindsided by someone else's innovation, then used their position in the market to attempt a wholesale takeover of a sector using the "embrace and extend" strategy.
While Netscape was creating a revolution with their browser, Bill Gates was addressing developers and industry pundits and showing off his portfolio of CDs. He was proclaiming that they were the next revolution in computing, and showing how a person could carry around a small binder with all the information they ever needed, and pay only a small monthly subscription to keep their plasticized data current. It was a few months later that Redmond uttered a collective "Oh Sh%$". They bought a browser, slapped their icon on it, and started giving it away for free. Shortly after this, they began modifying the internal scripting language to add non-standard HTML tags that only their browser was compatible with. And it was about this time that the infamous "cut off their oxygen" phrase was uttered in a Microsoft executive meeting about Netscape.
So, based on this, and many other examples, I would put it to you dear reader that Microsoft's.NET strategy will tend to close off access to non-ms products. It is reasonable to assume that this will indeed entail support of Windows and Office to the detriment of other operating systems and productivity apps.
Good point... but I'd like to use it to make one of my own (sorry about the unauthorized use, please don't sick the RIAA on me).
It's been interesting to read the posts here pointing out how coders who have been at the game longer; know more, write better code, have more to offer. And that hiring young, inexperienced coders over seasoned professionals is stupid. Now, are the folks arguing these points the same ones who argue that if we organize as IT workers, then we wouldn't get promoted based on skill, just seniority? And that is why organizing would be bad? Sounds to me like everyone thinks skill TENDS to be based on one's seniority in the field. When you talk about hiring an older experienced programmer over a young kid fresh out of school, you are talking about seniority.
So which is it folks? Make up your minds? You can't have it both ways.
IMHO, You are absolutely correct, and I agree with you 100 percent. Trouble is, that doesn't mean sh&$!
The responses I have read make me want to just put my head down and walk out of the building. Here is a truth that is very hard for most programmer/engineer types to understand - Yes, you may be factually correct, but that DOES NOT MATTER if the people making the decisions don't agree with you. And forget the management style "red herrings". Those tend to go right over many engineers heads.
The fact of the matter is, it is cheaper to hire younger IT people, and they are less "troublesome" to management. In addition, they don't threaten the higher ups because they are less likely to be promoted and they can be intimidated easier. Do some managers actually believe that younger is better? Probably. Is that how the whole idea got started? Probably not. Does it matter? NO!
[rant] Wake up and smell the caffeinated beverage of your choice. Realize that this is about POWER. Nothing more, nothing less. And right now, they have it... because we gave it to them.[/rant]
I thought about making disparaging remarks about your father... but I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's the one good HR worker in the world. Seriously though, HR is exists the company. Let's stop propagating the lie that HR somehow performs a service to the employees. HR exists to meet the requirements of the various employment laws and to protect the company from violating those laws. Whether the decision in a dispute is in the employee's or management favor, it will not be made on the merits of the arguments. It will be made to benefit the company. End of story.
So, should the employees go to HR about the problem? Probably not. Unless management is violating the law, HR won't care. The only thing going to HR will do is embarrass management, and make HR start counseling that same management group to get rid of the "unruly" employees in favor of some who are better behaved. Yes, these folks should talk to their management chain, but leave your dad and any other HR people out of it. It will only make the problem worse and create a situation where a solution will be harder to negotiate.
Sad, but true. I have to agree with you up to a point. But, whey not at least try? Why give up? The industry (and its' people) are starting to mature and what didn't work before, may work now.
I will have to take exception to the "technically skilled OFFICE JOBS" about IS and IT though. Building and maintaining an IT infrastructure at a medum to large company goes way beyond the bounds of an "OFFICE JOB". In fact, unlike some other roles in an organiztion where I could pull in some compotent individuals and teach them the job in a week, the IT part of the business usually requires some senior people w/ 10+ years of experience and uauslly a 4+ year degree in the field. In short, an IT engineer might be able to do a VP's job w/ a little training. The VP would be useless in IT w/o 6 month OTJ and then they would be a VERY junior part of the group.
Which brings up another point... w/o IT and Tech people most large businesses would GRIND TO A HALT. Ford, GM, Lockheed, AT&T coudn't function for a day w/o their IT staff. And I think that is part of the reason that, in general, most mgmt secretly (or in some cases, openly) hates techs. Whether they are IT engineers, programmers, or just they guy who manages the web site. They don't like 'em. They know they can't do that stuff themselves and they don't like being dependant on the "geeks".
Um... you are new to the world of high-tech aren't you? Let's lay it down for him shall we folks.
A. Most companies expect to be able to put their tech engineers on-call instead of hiring enough staff to do the job. And they will NOT compensate the staff for being on-call. In fact, high-tech lobbied VERY hard when the labor laws were recently being revamped so the tech workers were specifically excluded from recieving overtime/on-call benefits if they were salaried employees.
B. 50+ hour work weeks. If you speak with a few managers here in siilly-con valley, they will tell you that anyone being hired for a senior position is "expected" to put in at least 60 hours a week. Minimum. And anyone puttin in less will be considered to be a "loafer". So, in short, the 40~ week is a myth in high tech. It doesn't exist.
C. Legal grounds for unlawful termination suit (you are WRONG, btw) is a very different thing from being able to pursue and unlawful termination suit. First you'll need to find a lawyer to take your case. Unless they feel they can get at least $250K in settlement, they wont even consider it. Or, you'll need to hire a lawyer. You have $50-60K sitting around for legal fees don't you? Point is sparky, even if you have grounds for a suit, it aint gonna happen. You'll have the satisfaction of knowing you are right. But that won't keep your electricity turned on.
I've interviewed w/ several employers while looking for a new job after 4 years with my present employer (they are shutting down their US operations) and I have been asked, in every interview, if I am one of those "8 to 5 types" and if I had any problems with being on-call. I guarantee you that if I answer yes to either question, that will be the last time they talk to me.
Ok, get over the "bring your own tools" part and the rest of the post was very good. Right now, MS certs, and those from many other vendors are laughed at by quite a few Uber-Geeks, and are frequently refered too as worthless. Supposedly, they are too easy to get and the results are inconsistent quality of work and a cheapening of the value of the certs. Fine. Let's help out ourselves and the employers. Let's start a trade union like the American Medical Association and require people "practicing" as Systems Engineers, IT Architects, Network Enginners, Programers, et al. to be certified through the trade group? Then the certifications might mean something, and those of you who know you are the greatest thing since sliced core memory won't have to pick up the slack for all your know nothing poser coworkers.
In short, stop cursing the darkness, and light a candle. I have to wonder though. How many of the Slashdot regulars who scream about Unions promoting for senority instead of skill would actually pass the certifications? Are their arguments really "from the heart" or are they just a red herring becuase they are afraid of having to pass the scrutiny of their peers instead of being able to tell some non-tech manager about their 1337 sk1115?
Slashdot Mirror
... And many of them vote.
Now, a C5A Galaxy on the other hand? Whoa momma!
My apologies to D.F. Jones.
http://twtd.bluemountains.net.au/Rick/liz_cfp.htm
My god, you are right! We have to alert our leaders... All payphones must be eliminated. I'll call the office of homeland security. Everybody else, call your local phone company and encourage them to imediatly disable every payphone in the country. Think of the children!
So to put it simply, everyone can get all hot and sweaty about "globalization", but what we currently have is not globalization. It is instead, simply a mechanism which detrimental to one group of people to the benefit of another. Is the slashdot crowd opposed to that sort of thing? In general, yes. So, it would seem obvious that why the slashdot crowd is opposed to the current state of affairs.
Of course you will make an exception for Cadillac and Volvo drivers wont you? I mean, they will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes?!? Right? Please? For the good of all us motorcyclists?!?!
It didn't start getting used to seal duct work until well after WW II. And, as you pointed out, it's a poor choice for that task. On the other hand, it is great to have around in the pits at the track (where it is often referred to as 100-mile-an-hour tape).
Whenever you are doing a large capital project (and yes, when the money is coming out of my bank account, a home network is a large capital project) you sometimes spend more money up-front to save money in the long-run. Cable is cheap compared to labor and the other associated costs of installing it. So you pull a higher grade than you need. In fact, in larger installations, you sometimes pull more than you need as well. Then if you have a cable failure, between a couple of buildings for example, you simply abandon the old cable and energize one of the spares. As another poster pointed out, it's about seeing "the big picture". Hope this helps.
The Superintendent needs to cash a reality check NOW! If nothing else, her attitude shows that she has no understanding of the seriousness of the issue, and should not be allowed to set technology policy, or influence it for that matter, in the future.
[RANT] Folks on SlashDot (and in general society) have bought into the lie that if someone wrongs you financially, there are legal recourses. Hire a lawyer and sue the bastards, call the police and have the perpitrators arrested. The truth of course is that these recourses don't exist in most cases. You can't sue someone unless you can afford to hire a lawyer (most lawyers won't take contingency cases unless they believe they can easily win a judgement of at least 100K). You can't get law enforcement to do anything unless it falls into one of their well-defined catecories. End of story. [/RANT]
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a57/mailf orm.htm
I would encourage thos of you who live in California and find his comments to be a "crock" as the author of this thread so aptly put it, to go to his web site and drop him a note. Let him know how you feel about his decsion, and about the fact that he is complaining about something that is legal under current law. And then of course point out to him, that if he doesn't like it, maybe he should change the law.
I'm going to have to go and take a shower now. Reading politicians web sites makes me feel sooo dirty.
The sad thing about the "sue the bastards" option, is that even if your employer really has done something heinous, you probably won't be able to sue them. Being able to sue an employer requires that you either have enough money in the bank to pay legal fees for a couple of years, or you have to find a lawyer that will take the case on contingency. That usually means that they will only take the case if they feel it is a "slam dunk" and will have a gross settlement of over $250,000. It is sad but true, the only people who get justice in this type of situation are those who can afford to pay for it.
Um, why? This is a very definite statement. Do you really think you can back it up with facts?
Ok, you mention that you were a manager, and I'm assuming that this is to infer that you understand both perspectives. But, you also point out that you worked as an individual contributor. Ok, that means you were a middle manager at best. You don't make policy at that level, you carry it out. So you don't really have a perspective on both sides of issue, and you aren't the one who a union would be negotiating with. Sorry, but the folks the union would be talking with would be C-level or at least EVP. And if you think people at that level consider themselves part of "one big company family", I've got some ocean front property in Kansas you might like. Oh, and those stock options you had as part owner in the company... did they fully vest for you, at no cost, when you were laid-off? No? That's a shame, I bet if you got a look at the contract of any of the EVP's at the company you'd find that is one of the perks that they get.
As far as your "long-term career and compensation prospects", you might want to read this UC Davis report to Congress regarding hiring and retention in the IT field. I hate to break it to you, but you don't have ANY long-term prospects in IT or programming.
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
Wow, those are some pretty strong words. Ok, when you get to college sparky, take debate 101 and your prof will tell you that insulting those you don't agree with will never get them to come around to your point of view. Also, when you take history 101, you will probably be told that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Based on the past behavior of MS, why do you think anyone would believe they would behave differently with their .NET product?
Yes, you'll probably call me something worse than an idiot this time... but remember if you get to nasty I'll have to call your mom and have her wash your mouth out with soap.
While Netscape was creating a revolution with their browser, Bill Gates was addressing developers and industry pundits and showing off his portfolio of CDs. He was proclaiming that they were the next revolution in computing, and showing how a person could carry around a small binder with all the information they ever needed, and pay only a small monthly subscription to keep their plasticized data current. It was a few months later that Redmond uttered a collective "Oh Sh%$". They bought a browser, slapped their icon on it, and started giving it away for free. Shortly after this, they began modifying the internal scripting language to add non-standard HTML tags that only their browser was compatible with. And it was about this time that the infamous "cut off their oxygen" phrase was uttered in a Microsoft executive meeting about Netscape.
So, based on this, and many other examples, I would put it to you dear reader that Microsoft's .NET strategy will tend to close off access to non-ms products. It is reasonable to assume that this will indeed entail support of Windows and Office to the detriment of other operating systems and productivity apps.
Ohhh, I've gotten myself too worked up. I have to go take my nap now. And you kids, stay off of my lawn!
It's been interesting to read the posts here pointing out how coders who have been at the game longer; know more, write better code, have more to offer. And that hiring young, inexperienced coders over seasoned professionals is stupid. Now, are the folks arguing these points the same ones who argue that if we organize as IT workers, then we wouldn't get promoted based on skill, just seniority? And that is why organizing would be bad? Sounds to me like everyone thinks skill TENDS to be based on one's seniority in the field. When you talk about hiring an older experienced programmer over a young kid fresh out of school, you are talking about seniority.
So which is it folks? Make up your minds? You can't have it both ways.
The responses I have read make me want to just put my head down and walk out of the building. Here is a truth that is very hard for most programmer/engineer types to understand - Yes, you may be factually correct, but that DOES NOT MATTER if the people making the decisions don't agree with you. And forget the management style "red herrings". Those tend to go right over many engineers heads.
The fact of the matter is, it is cheaper to hire younger IT people, and they are less "troublesome" to management. In addition, they don't threaten the higher ups because they are less likely to be promoted and they can be intimidated easier. Do some managers actually believe that younger is better? Probably. Is that how the whole idea got started? Probably not. Does it matter? NO!
[rant] Wake up and smell the caffeinated beverage of your choice. Realize that this is about POWER. Nothing more, nothing less. And right now, they have it... because we gave it to them.[/rant]
So, should the employees go to HR about the problem? Probably not. Unless management is violating the law, HR won't care. The only thing going to HR will do is embarrass management, and make HR start counseling that same management group to get rid of the "unruly" employees in favor of some who are better behaved. Yes, these folks should talk to their management chain, but leave your dad and any other HR people out of it. It will only make the problem worse and create a situation where a solution will be harder to negotiate.
I will have to take exception to the "technically skilled OFFICE JOBS" about IS and IT though. Building and maintaining an IT infrastructure at a medum to large company goes way beyond the bounds of an "OFFICE JOB". In fact, unlike some other roles in an organiztion where I could pull in some compotent individuals and teach them the job in a week, the IT part of the business usually requires some senior people w/ 10+ years of experience and uauslly a 4+ year degree in the field. In short, an IT engineer might be able to do a VP's job w/ a little training. The VP would be useless in IT w/o 6 month OTJ and then they would be a VERY junior part of the group.
Which brings up another point... w/o IT and Tech people most large businesses would GRIND TO A HALT. Ford, GM, Lockheed, AT&T coudn't function for a day w/o their IT staff. And I think that is part of the reason that, in general, most mgmt secretly (or in some cases, openly) hates techs. Whether they are IT engineers, programmers, or just they guy who manages the web site. They don't like 'em. They know they can't do that stuff themselves and they don't like being dependant on the "geeks".
A. Most companies expect to be able to put their tech engineers on-call instead of hiring enough staff to do the job. And they will NOT compensate the staff for being on-call. In fact, high-tech lobbied VERY hard when the labor laws were recently being revamped so the tech workers were specifically excluded from recieving overtime/on-call benefits if they were salaried employees.
B. 50+ hour work weeks. If you speak with a few managers here in siilly-con valley, they will tell you that anyone being hired for a senior position is "expected" to put in at least 60 hours a week. Minimum. And anyone puttin in less will be considered to be a "loafer". So, in short, the 40~ week is a myth in high tech. It doesn't exist.
C. Legal grounds for unlawful termination suit (you are WRONG, btw) is a very different thing from being able to pursue and unlawful termination suit. First you'll need to find a lawyer to take your case. Unless they feel they can get at least $250K in settlement, they wont even consider it. Or, you'll need to hire a lawyer. You have $50-60K sitting around for legal fees don't you? Point is sparky, even if you have grounds for a suit, it aint gonna happen. You'll have the satisfaction of knowing you are right. But that won't keep your electricity turned on.
I've interviewed w/ several employers while looking for a new job after 4 years with my present employer (they are shutting down their US operations) and I have been asked, in every interview, if I am one of those "8 to 5 types" and if I had any problems with being on-call. I guarantee you that if I answer yes to either question, that will be the last time they talk to me.
In short, stop cursing the darkness, and light a candle. I have to wonder though. How many of the Slashdot regulars who scream about Unions promoting for senority instead of skill would actually pass the certifications? Are their arguments really "from the heart" or are they just a red herring becuase they are afraid of having to pass the scrutiny of their peers instead of being able to tell some non-tech manager about their 1337 sk1115?