I would tend to agree with you. When I mentioned spec documents, I meant moreso sitting down with the founders and understanding what we want and then discussing possible solutions, and then laying out broad strokes.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand me. My fault for not being clear. "Ivy Tech" is a specific technical school in the midwest which is known for being the lowest common denominator.
For the last two months I have been searching for two people to fill two clearly defined (and very fillable) positions with my company. We have used MOnster.com (Which has outrageous pricing) as well as craiglist, and have really only received crap.
We have two IT Positions available, one for Web Developer -- PHP interfacing with PostGreSQL, and another for Software Engineer -- Designing Spec Docs and then Coding (and eventually managing other coders) that spec doc.
Our technology bases arent the newest around (PHP, PostGreSQL, Perl/C) but we consistently get the following types of resumes:
1 - Foreigners who want to work in the US. Sorry, I cant and dont want to sponsor you. We are a small company.
2 - Foreigners who want to consult with companies in the US, but not move or be an employee. Sorry, not happening with us.
3 - Highly underqualified people applying for a position. For example -- We have recieved a number of applicants who have 1 year programming experience, and no specific experience in our tech's, and who attended less-then-ideal educational institutions (Ivy Tech anyone?).
I think that for every capable IT person, there are probably 15 cert jockies, and 25 idiots.
Moreover, we have had people apply for the position who then asked what our company did. They could have spend 30 seconds looking at our website before dropping off or emailing their resume and found out. This type of laziness is horrible.
Yeah, just what I need as a small business owner, more insurance! Ridiculous.
When are people going to learn that insurance companies arent competitive anymore! They are all re-insuring each other, which essentially pushes silent collusion. This industry just rakes in teh cash and screws everyone else. No More Insurance.
Well, except that Claria hasnt been nearly as successful in the first place. Sure, they are at millions, but if you adjust carnegie or rockefeller's incomes to modern-day, it would be easily billions.
Moreso, Claria has just learned that you can only fight bad PR with lawsuits, and it works, unfortunately.
First, let me preface this by saying that when I was in the consulting gig (for 5+ years, just got out 3 mo's ago), I set up a number of Windows 2k3 SBS servers, and they do have advantages.
BUT
Outlook Web Access is just plain crap. Its slow, requires oodles of bandwidth, and is only about 20% that Outlook 2003 really is. Dont believe me? Try to open 3 shared calendars in OWA. It doesnt work. SBS makes up for it in other areas.
I think there is something to Webmail replacing Desktop email, but not for a long, long time. How many people read IMAP email in Offline mode while travelling? I know I do. I'm not giving up my thunderbird anytime soon, until I can use Webmail in offline mode (which doesnt seem really feasible). Granted, I am a power use, so Taco wasnt speaking to me.
This is pretty shaky territory. Granted, I'm not sure where you live or the laws that govern your region of the world, but around here, that wouldnt be much of a leg to stand on.
First, you would need to establish probably cause/effect relationship. Does a faulty lock lead directly to a break in, and directly to the damages at hand (say, missing jewelry or something). Not easy, but not as bad as the rest. The theif could just have broken the door down, gone through window, etc if the lock wasnt penetrateable.
Second, you would need to establish that the locksmith knowingly and willingly installed the lock to be faulty. Pretty hard to do.
Finally, you would need to establish that a reasonable person wouldnt test their own door. Pretty hard to do. Reasonable people would test that their door and locks werent faulty post installation of a locksmith's improvements. This might be less reasonable given something that isnt easily tested, but door locks are very easily tested.
Good luck with that one, around here property owner negligence doesnt allow you to pass the blame and hence sue the locksmith. Its your house! Buyer beware!
Ive always just called them what they are: mis-led idiots.
Not all democrats are idiots, so thats not totally fair. Besides, there are plenty of republicans who want the government to run their lives just as much, provided its a good ol' christian government that wont allow gay marriage. Again, not everybody, but at least a significant portion.
The best part about your posts is that you dont actually say anything of value. You dont contribute. You just comment on how others arent paying attention to your questions. What are you, a mediator?
I'm not going to comment on most of your post, mainly becuase I dont think we will progress anywhere in the conversation.
I will respond to this, however. It's not people like me who are the problem, it's people like you, who refuse to give up government entirely(sorry, that may not be true; are you posting from sub-Saharan Africa?), but also refuse to admit that some amount of government is a good thing.
When did I say government was a bad thing? Please dont put words in my mouth. What i SAID was that it doesnt make sense to trade fake safety for real personal liberty. Thats what I said.
Your questions are meaningless. You use the word government like its all one and the same body, and thats childish. In the US, we have many distinct and separate levels of the government. I personally believe that control should rely more near the local level, and less at the federal level. So, Its not that I believe in less government, per say, but rather a different government, then perhaps you do. Most issues in the world are local issues. They require local attention, and need to compensate for local needs.
So, I am *not* doing anything of the sort that you claim I am. I'm glad you were paying so much attention.
And this is why you have no useful answers at all to the questions "what amount of government is ideal?" and "what amount of government is practical?"
First, I think its funny that you act high and mighty without actually answering your own questions in ANY of your posts. In fact, I have very useful answers to both of those questions. 1 - The ideal amount of government is the smallest possible to get the basic tasks done. 2 - Repeat answer from 1. Practical = Ideal.
Why dont you actually try answering your own questions before posing them to others in a fashion implying that you know everything. Maybe then I will give you a little bit more credibility.
I Didnt say thread,I said discussion, which implies a larger context. The reason that a story like this was posted to slashdot was that becuase it affect people's personal liberties.
My god. People like you really exist? Thats interesting, I thought it was just a myth that people who were willing to let the government run their life existed. I guess not.
The whole point of this discussion is that trading personal liberty for the proposed security is a red herring. You just lose liberty, and dont gain any real security, other than the fairytale type. So really, you end up trading personal liberty for something a little bit more clever than Little Red Riding hood. If someone wants to take down a plane, they will. Life is dangerous. Losing freedom is more dangerous.
I generally agree with you, there are shortcomings when it comes to treatments.
However, the debate was over a cure for aids. I think that would be much less divisive than a potential treatment for cancer that is also a popular drug.
The whole idea behind a corporation is that it is a legal 'person'. But it doesn't have any human characteristics like ethics or morals.
Not exactly. Its only a legal 'entity', not a person, but why be precise? When was the last time a corporation went to jail? Or voted? or hit you in the face? Its not a person, it cant be, its not alive. Again, please dont give something human characteristics that isnt human. If you see the corporation as evil, then it must be the people who run it who are evil. Focus on them. Once we talk about individuals, with track records, and real characteristics, we can have a real debate.
Just the opposite, the function of the corporation is to maximize the return on investment to their shareholders. Given a choice between any ethical or moral position on any issue and the making money, the corporation must disregard the humanistic sides of the issue and always go with the choice to make money.
Once again, "the corporation" doesnt disregard anything. Try again. Regardless, I will ask, AGAIN, how can "the corporation" maximize profit by NOT providing solutions? (In this case, how can "the corporation" maximize profits by NOT providing an AIDS cure?). More importantly, why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive? Cant corporations be directed to do good things AND make money?
Perhaps my critics need to get a little more realistic about the forces that are making the decisions around here. Study some history. And learn to avoid using pronouns and swear words in the same sentence.
Ok, I'll try being more realistic, if you trying being smarter. I'll get so realistic, that I will actually encourage you (again) to talk, email, write, fax, etc ANY Of the corprations you see as "evil" and really engage their officers in real discourse over real issues, instead of blindly labeling them as "evil". You sound like someone in either political party who labels something they dont like as evil to gain moving strength. Just becuase you disagree with some decisions, doesnt immediately make them evil. But that just makes your argument seem more hip and salient, when its not.
And again, from my original statement, I truly am sorry that you believe that the world you live in is out to get you.
People run corporations. People would see that, regardless of profit, a cure for aids needs to get out and be out. They wouldnt not produce it (sorry for double neg) just to gain profit. If someone tried that, the company would be sued, have a huge PR nightmare, and the executive would be kicked the fuck out. Besides, if anything, and like you stated, there would be huge profit in getting the solution out to everyone. So its a win win for everyone.
If this is really the world you live in, then A) I'm really sorry for you, and B) you might want to get some professional help w/your paranoia.
Everytime I hear that whole "Evil Corporations" line, my brain shuts off to your logic. Until corporations are run by robots, they are still run by people. So you can say evil people, but not evil corporations. A corporation, in and of itself, can NOT be evil. At least not anymore evil than say, a pencil. Its not alive.
Secondly, do you REALLY believe that there is this whole class of people running these drug, research, and other corporations who ALL want to hurt the world at their own personal gain? I highly doubt such a group-effort exists. Sure, just like ANY OTHER PROFESSION, there are bound to be bad seeds, and some are bound to rise to the top. But if you really believe that every corporate executive in these companies has it out for humanity, I suggest you go meet some of them. You will find out that they NEED to charge those prices to keep development up. You will find that these people go to work in the morning, come home at night, and try to help their family, their community, and the world at approximately the same rate as most around them. You will find out that these are real, normal, people with all the different personalities, interests, wishes, fears, hopes, and dreams.
Finally, to use this whole "evil corporations" as a legitimate reason for this man to not help out, is revolting. I would call that line of logic borderline stupidity. EVEN if we assume some guy will profit from it, and that said person is evil, who the fuck cares? If the cure gets out, regardless of how much money some guy or organization makes, the cure still gets out, and people dont die. Surely you dont money over human lives?
Its not an inconvenience. The point is that if everyone switched, it would be more convenient for everyone.
Sure, having 12 noon be when the sun is highest in the sky, but is that really useful anymore to anyone? I think there is a better argument to having world time, where everyone would just know that "around here, the sun hits its highest point at 6:00". People would still go to wokr when the sun comes up, and go home when the sun starts to go down. It just means the communication between communities would be much, MUCH easier.
The problem is, some people will never see this advantage, becuase they only think locally. Its also not likely to happen anytime soon becuase it would be a total ridiculousness for the week when everyone switched.
This is a wonderfully accurate argument for universal time. Having dealt with this BS for a while now, along with 1 additional bonus, residing in Indiana (which doesnt apply DST) makes it even worse.
Luckily, Indiana has recently decided to adopt DST (gee, only decades behind the rest of the country...shock), at least I wont be worse off than the rest of the travelling population.
I've always thought that a really big multinational company could start this push more effectively than I ever could. They could just demand that the company schedule meetings in Zulu (or some other effective time) and it would start with inter-employee meetings and perhaps spread to vendors etc eventually, therefor starting the trend. Obviously one would just need to have a Zulu app on their palmpilot or phone to keep updated until the rest of the world got on it.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI
5 8798
The jobs are still on monster @ http://jobsearch.monster.com/getjob.asp?JobID=371
Apply!
Thanks for your comments, they are helpful.
I would tend to agree with you. When I mentioned spec documents, I meant moreso sitting down with the founders and understanding what we want and then discussing possible solutions, and then laying out broad strokes.
I'll check out that link, thanks.
substitute college for company... I was interrupted.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand me. My fault for not being clear. "Ivy Tech" is a specific technical school in the midwest which is known for being the lowest common denominator.
http://www.ivytech.edu/
I would be glad to have ANYONE apply from any normal state school, or even who had good experience.
BUt little experience + bad education is not the way into this college.
Brian
For the last two months I have been searching for two people to fill two clearly defined (and very fillable) positions with my company. We have used MOnster.com (Which has outrageous pricing) as well as craiglist, and have really only received crap.
We have two IT Positions available, one for Web Developer -- PHP interfacing with PostGreSQL, and another for Software Engineer -- Designing Spec Docs and then Coding (and eventually managing other coders) that spec doc.
Our technology bases arent the newest around (PHP, PostGreSQL, Perl/C) but we consistently get the following types of resumes:
1 - Foreigners who want to work in the US. Sorry, I cant and dont want to sponsor you. We are a small company.
2 - Foreigners who want to consult with companies in the US, but not move or be an employee. Sorry, not happening with us.
3 - Highly underqualified people applying for a position. For example -- We have recieved a number of applicants who have 1 year programming experience, and no specific experience in our tech's, and who attended less-then-ideal educational institutions (Ivy Tech anyone?).
I think that for every capable IT person, there are probably 15 cert jockies, and 25 idiots.
Moreover, we have had people apply for the position who then asked what our company did. They could have spend 30 seconds looking at our website before dropping off or emailing their resume and found out. This type of laziness is horrible.
B
Yeah, just what I need as a small business owner, more insurance! Ridiculous.
When are people going to learn that insurance companies arent competitive anymore! They are all re-insuring each other, which essentially pushes silent collusion. This industry just rakes in teh cash and screws everyone else. No More Insurance.
Well, except that Claria hasnt been nearly as successful in the first place. Sure, they are at millions, but if you adjust carnegie or rockefeller's incomes to modern-day, it would be easily billions.
Moreso, Claria has just learned that you can only fight bad PR with lawsuits, and it works, unfortunately.
Thats a workaround. Users dont want workarounds, they want it to work in one window.
There are probably a bajillion workaround for the flaws with OWA, but thats beside the point of my comment.
besides, CTRL-T would be easier, in firefox. I forget whether OWA renders properly in Firefox.
First, let me preface this by saying that when I was in the consulting gig (for 5+ years, just got out 3 mo's ago), I set up a number of Windows 2k3 SBS servers, and they do have advantages.
BUT
Outlook Web Access is just plain crap. Its slow, requires oodles of bandwidth, and is only about 20% that Outlook 2003 really is. Dont believe me? Try to open 3 shared calendars in OWA. It doesnt work. SBS makes up for it in other areas.
I think there is something to Webmail replacing Desktop email, but not for a long, long time. How many people read IMAP email in Offline mode while travelling? I know I do. I'm not giving up my thunderbird anytime soon, until I can use Webmail in offline mode (which doesnt seem really feasible). Granted, I am a power use, so Taco wasnt speaking to me.
Brushfire
This is pretty shaky territory. Granted, I'm not sure where you live or the laws that govern your region of the world, but around here, that wouldnt be much of a leg to stand on.
First, you would need to establish probably cause/effect relationship. Does a faulty lock lead directly to a break in, and directly to the damages at hand (say, missing jewelry or something). Not easy, but not as bad as the rest. The theif could just have broken the door down, gone through window, etc if the lock wasnt penetrateable.
Second, you would need to establish that the locksmith knowingly and willingly installed the lock to be faulty. Pretty hard to do.
Finally, you would need to establish that a reasonable person wouldnt test their own door. Pretty hard to do. Reasonable people would test that their door and locks werent faulty post installation of a locksmith's improvements. This might be less reasonable given something that isnt easily tested, but door locks are very easily tested.
Good luck with that one, around here property owner negligence doesnt allow you to pass the blame and hence sue the locksmith. Its your house! Buyer beware!
Ive always just called them what they are: mis-led idiots.
Not all democrats are idiots, so thats not totally fair. Besides, there are plenty of republicans who want the government to run their lives just as much, provided its a good ol' christian government that wont allow gay marriage. Again, not everybody, but at least a significant portion.
The best part about your posts is that you dont actually say anything of value. You dont contribute. You just comment on how others arent paying attention to your questions. What are you, a mediator?
I'm not going to comment on most of your post, mainly becuase I dont think we will progress anywhere in the conversation.
I will respond to this, however.
It's not people like me who are the problem, it's people like you, who refuse to give up government entirely(sorry, that may not be true; are you posting from sub-Saharan Africa?), but also refuse to admit that some amount of government is a good thing.
When did I say government was a bad thing? Please dont put words in my mouth. What i SAID was that it doesnt make sense to trade fake safety for real personal liberty. Thats what I said.
Your questions are meaningless. You use the word government like its all one and the same body, and thats childish. In the US, we have many distinct and separate levels of the government. I personally believe that control should rely more near the local level, and less at the federal level. So, Its not that I believe in less government, per say, but rather a different government, then perhaps you do. Most issues in the world are local issues. They require local attention, and need to compensate for local needs.
So, I am *not* doing anything of the sort that you claim I am. I'm glad you were paying so much attention.
And this is why you have no useful answers at all to the questions "what amount of government is ideal?" and "what amount of government is practical?"
First, I think its funny that you act high and mighty without actually answering your own questions in ANY of your posts. In fact, I have very useful answers to both of those questions. 1 - The ideal amount of government is the smallest possible to get the basic tasks done. 2 - Repeat answer from 1. Practical = Ideal.
Why dont you actually try answering your own questions before posing them to others in a fashion implying that you know everything. Maybe then I will give you a little bit more credibility.
I Didnt say thread,I said discussion, which implies a larger context. The reason that a story like this was posted to slashdot was that becuase it affect people's personal liberties.
My god. People like you really exist? Thats interesting, I thought it was just a myth that people who were willing to let the government run their life existed. I guess not.
The whole point of this discussion is that trading personal liberty for the proposed security is a red herring. You just lose liberty, and dont gain any real security, other than the fairytale type. So really, you end up trading personal liberty for something a little bit more clever than Little Red Riding hood. If someone wants to take down a plane, they will. Life is dangerous. Losing freedom is more dangerous.
As another poster pointed out, when it comes to AIDS and deadly diseases, solutions pay more.
Dead people dont buy treatments.
Think about it. I think your argument is sound if the patient doesnt die from the disease/condition.
I generally agree with you, there are shortcomings when it comes to treatments.
However, the debate was over a cure for aids. I think that would be much less divisive than a potential treatment for cancer that is also a popular drug.
The whole idea behind a corporation is that it is a legal 'person'. But it doesn't have any human characteristics like ethics or morals.
Not exactly. Its only a legal 'entity', not a person, but why be precise? When was the last time a corporation went to jail? Or voted? or hit you in the face? Its not a person, it cant be, its not alive. Again, please dont give something human characteristics that isnt human. If you see the corporation as evil, then it must be the people who run it who are evil. Focus on them. Once we talk about individuals, with track records, and real characteristics, we can have a real debate.
Just the opposite, the function of the corporation is to maximize the return on investment to their shareholders. Given a choice between any ethical or moral position on any issue and the making money, the corporation must disregard the humanistic sides of the issue and always go with the choice to make money.
Once again, "the corporation" doesnt disregard anything. Try again. Regardless, I will ask, AGAIN, how can "the corporation" maximize profit by NOT providing solutions? (In this case, how can "the corporation" maximize profits by NOT providing an AIDS cure?). More importantly, why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive? Cant corporations be directed to do good things AND make money?
Perhaps my critics need to get a little more realistic about the forces that are making the decisions around here. Study some history. And learn to avoid using pronouns and swear words in the same sentence.
Ok, I'll try being more realistic, if you trying being smarter. I'll get so realistic, that I will actually encourage you (again) to talk, email, write, fax, etc ANY Of the corprations you see as "evil" and really engage their officers in real discourse over real issues, instead of blindly labeling them as "evil". You sound like someone in either political party who labels something they dont like as evil to gain moving strength. Just becuase you disagree with some decisions, doesnt immediately make them evil. But that just makes your argument seem more hip and salient, when its not.
And again, from my original statement, I truly am sorry that you believe that the world you live in is out to get you.
No, my point in replying to his comment was this:
People run corporations. People would see that, regardless of profit, a cure for aids needs to get out and be out. They wouldnt not produce it (sorry for double neg) just to gain profit. If someone tried that, the company would be sued, have a huge PR nightmare, and the executive would be kicked the fuck out. Besides, if anything, and like you stated, there would be huge profit in getting the solution out to everyone. So its a win win for everyone.
Flamebait? Slashdot mods are hilarious. If mine is flamebait, what exactly is the post I was responding to?
Obvious Troll, but I will bite.
If this is really the world you live in, then A) I'm really sorry for you, and B) you might want to get some professional help w/your paranoia.
Everytime I hear that whole "Evil Corporations" line, my brain shuts off to your logic. Until corporations are run by robots, they are still run by people. So you can say evil people, but not evil corporations. A corporation, in and of itself, can NOT be evil. At least not anymore evil than say, a pencil. Its not alive.
Secondly, do you REALLY believe that there is this whole class of people running these drug, research, and other corporations who ALL want to hurt the world at their own personal gain? I highly doubt such a group-effort exists. Sure, just like ANY OTHER PROFESSION, there are bound to be bad seeds, and some are bound to rise to the top. But if you really believe that every corporate executive in these companies has it out for humanity, I suggest you go meet some of them. You will find out that they NEED to charge those prices to keep development up. You will find that these people go to work in the morning, come home at night, and try to help their family, their community, and the world at approximately the same rate as most around them. You will find out that these are real, normal, people with all the different personalities, interests, wishes, fears, hopes, and dreams.
Finally, to use this whole "evil corporations" as a legitimate reason for this man to not help out, is revolting. I would call that line of logic borderline stupidity. EVEN if we assume some guy will profit from it, and that said person is evil, who the fuck cares? If the cure gets out, regardless of how much money some guy or organization makes, the cure still gets out, and people dont die. Surely you dont money over human lives?
Summary: Get a fucking grip.
Its not an inconvenience. The point is that if everyone switched, it would be more convenient for everyone.
Sure, having 12 noon be when the sun is highest in the sky, but is that really useful anymore to anyone? I think there is a better argument to having world time, where everyone would just know that "around here, the sun hits its highest point at 6:00". People would still go to wokr when the sun comes up, and go home when the sun starts to go down. It just means the communication between communities would be much, MUCH easier.
The problem is, some people will never see this advantage, becuase they only think locally. Its also not likely to happen anytime soon becuase it would be a total ridiculousness for the week when everyone switched.
Mod parent up please.
This is a wonderfully accurate argument for universal time. Having dealt with this BS for a while now, along with 1 additional bonus, residing in Indiana (which doesnt apply DST) makes it even worse.
Luckily, Indiana has recently decided to adopt DST (gee, only decades behind the rest of the country...shock), at least I wont be worse off than the rest of the travelling population.
I've always thought that a really big multinational company could start this push more effectively than I ever could. They could just demand that the company schedule meetings in Zulu (or some other effective time) and it would start with inter-employee meetings and perhaps spread to vendors etc eventually, therefor starting the trend. Obviously one would just need to have a Zulu app on their palmpilot or phone to keep updated until the rest of the world got on it.
B
That doesnt apply for *freedom* time.
they're meant to be conversation pieces, the center of attention.
That might be the funniest thing I have ever heard. Oh wait, you werent kidding. Nevermind, its the most depressing thing I have ever heard.