It's already important. My company has been looking for a Sr DBA for over two months. There have been several candidates that are well qualified on paper, but they lack the interpersonal skills and ability to formulate ideas & present them well in the interview. If you're interested in computer science, I might recommend a major in business with a minor in comp sci.
Your problem is that you are looking for an oxymoron. I guarantee anybody who has GOOD DBA skills will not have interpersonal skills, and anybody with interpersonal skills will not be a good DBA. Those two skillsets are mutually exclusive.
This is why I abandoned private industry- it's full of stupid pointy-haired bosses who want the impossible, and if you don't give it to them, will fire you.
If we had more programmers with SE degrees we'd have fewer crappy websites. A CS degree doesn't give you the engineering knowledge neccessary to keep your code clean or your site loading fast.
If you're a really good programmer, you can probably make a go of it on your own doing freelance work.
I tried that between 2001 and 2003. What you need for that isn't good programming- it's good business sense and a fair amount of ESP. You need to be a good enough judge of character to know who will pay their bill and who won't when you present that final invoice. Far too many failed to pay that final invoice- and no business can survive a 50% decrease in revenue in a single month unless you were independantly wealthy going in.
Unfortuneately most programmers- me included- went into this because we *don't* have good interpersonal skills, otherwise we would have been playing sports in high school instead of messing with computers.
Actually, I was just pointing out that people like my Father-in-law, who is afraid to get Comcast Internet service lest his computer make him sick (he's heard too much about these damned computer viruses, and doesn't understand the difference between cyberspace and real space) will *also* never be polled by this method. But 20 years from now they'll all be dead.
If you depend on private industry- job security to these idiots means 2 years and you're out searching again. So what if there is plenty of opportunity if you never vest into your vacation time, let alone any other benefits? So do what I did- tell private industry to go learn to program their own computers and join government instead- where at least you can be assured you'll have a job tomorrow.
After 2001, I'll never trust the stock market or private industry ever again. Driving a truck is better than doing IT work for idiots.
People who care enough to blog, care enough to vote. The real answer to this is that he's found a way to construct a poll made up entirely of likely voters, and NO non-voters. I suspect that this 80% accuracy rate will get better as time goes on (and the older Luddites die). I also suspect his accuracy rate would have been somewhat less say, had he used this technique in the 2004 Presidential election (because federal country-wide elections would beat the signal to noise ratio).
The interesting thing in this though is the potential death knoll for Single User Windows Only Desktops. If everything proprietary in Windows can be run in Suse Linux, and everything in Suse Linux can be run on the Microsoft Virtual Machine, then there is no longer any need to keep a separate Windows machine around.
Bamboo, hemp, and Weyerhouser Super Trees all grow fast enough to achieve this rate of increase.
And all of these are good for lumber, which is good for the timber industry, which increases the number of jobs available.
Once a tree is done, after 5-80 years, absorbing all of the carbon it can, you can either let it die and rot which puts the carbon back in the atmosphere, or you can cut it down and turn it into lumber, which you use to build a house, which if you do it correctly will lock the carbon up in a structure for a century or more *beyond* the life of the tree.
Which do you think would do more good for global warming?
Actually it would be a great thing for the timber industry. Once a tree is done, after 80 years, absorbing all of the carbon it can, you can either let it die and rot which puts the carbon back in the atmosphere, or you can cut it down and turn it into lumber, which you use to build a house, which if you do it correctly will lock the carbon up in a structure for a century or more *beyond* the life of the tree.
Which do you think would do more good for global warming?
Just remember to leave enough farmland to keep you fed.
You don't want to go back to picking berries, do you?
Well, you see, that's the real neat thing about this solution- nothing stopping us from using fruit trees for this purpose. We can have the best effects of both.
Kinda difficult to maintain 300 mill people in the US that way.
Imagine the LA/NY people going out to the forest for a foraging trip every day of the year.
Might do us some good, just from the weight loss....
You gotta love that. Fancy suit people picking strawberries. Lovely.
Well, for that matter, I'm not real sure anybody has a monopoly on reality at all. Yes, you bring up the ether experiments as an example- but that wasn't exactly held as dogma by any of the scientists involved, now was it? Try this one on for size: objective evidence is impossible for human beings to gather because of imperfections in the human nervous system that makes eyewitness accounts unreliable even when repeatable.
Now having said that- I believe global warming exists. I believe it's a dire problem. I'm not sure I believe mankind has that huge of an effect- but I also believe it doesn't matter what caused it, the real engineering problem is how to deal with it. And thus my answer- plant biomass.
So you're plan for fixing climate change is to turn the US into a rainforest by changing the climate?
Considering that before late 1800s and early 1900s clear cut logging destroyed the Western Rain Forest, I'd call that RESTORING climate. But yes, I'm suggesting we engineer the climate to something that supports human life.
I mean it's not like most of the US recieves enough rainfall each year to make it even close to a rain forest.
As they proved in Israel- plant trees and the rain will come. That was one of the *big* terraforming success stories of the last century- too bad the recent Hezbollah war wiped out much of it with forest fires from missiles that failed to hit their targets.
It seems to me that once we have a gigantic weather control machine capable of causing rainfall over the entire US we won't need to go to all of that trouble to plant trees, we can just turn the thermostat down on the weather machine.
The trees are a part of the weather machine. Do you know why a rain forest is a rain forest? The rain doesn't come from clouds- it comes from moisture trapped in the upper canopy. Some of that comes from rain- but it continues to drip for weeks and even months after a storm.
Yes, which then goes to feed more biomass- the idea is to match our logrithmic curve of carbon production with a logrithmic curve of biomass creation.
As much as I'd like the answer to Global Warming to be as simple as planting a few trees, it really isn't. Tree planting has its place, but isn't nearly as effective as reduction in man-made CO2 levels.
Actually, if you could just replace the area lost in the Brazilian rain forest in the last 3 years, you'd do more than 20 Kyoto Accords put together. Trees are *extremely* efficient in this, and some trees that we've found that grow here in America can survive up to 20 centuries if taken care of.
The answer to global warming is *very* simple, and *very* well known. We just need to plant massive amounts of biomass to soak up all the excess carbon. We just need to turn the United States into a temperate rain forest- with enough variety to ensure tree survival and food production from the rain forest itself. Lock up that carbon in wood- and then use the wood to build houses- locking up the carbon for decades, maybe centuries...
Yes, but the point still stands. For 90% of Windows viruses out there, the user has to do something. Forcing them to log out when they're not using the system doesn't help this one bit; the infection happens when they're *using* the computer. For the other 10%, well, you have taken the time to turn off unneeded services, and you have spent the $30 to get them a broadband hardware firewall, right? If you do those two things, XP firewall and a copy of AVG will take care of most of the rest, and limit you to spending an hour or two running Hijack This and Adaware twice a year. If you also include an automatic backup system like Roxio's GoBack, then you're golden- even if they lose their data, just ask them when they last used the computer and it was working and revert the drive.
You'll NEVER convince them that they're not a target- so the real key is to configure the system to give them the convience they crave while minimizing YOUR time working on security. Then charge them $25/hr for your time to keep the stupid questions to a minimum.
I'm not talking about enterprise-level things such as card swipes and fingerprint scanners, just simple measures like logging off of the PC when it's not in use.
It's been my experience that 95% of Windows viruses require some sort of stupid user action to install and spread. Logging off the PC will not help in that situation. Minimizing the machine's online presence will help far more: turn off unneeded services, use both software and hardware firewalls, and finally, make sure Preview mode is turned off in both Outlook and Outlook express. Finally, just make it a point every six months to run Hijack This, make sure AVG is up to date, and run several spyware scanners, and charge them $25/hr for the service.
You're completely right about people of a certain generation choosing convience over security- but there are things YOU can do to keep them safe in spite of themselves.
Is the one displayed when you get your new machine. I have a feeling that this is just a marketing intelligence test- they've put out this EULA to see what we notice, and more importantly, what we don't. Based on the reports I've seen, the final version of the EULA will allow benchmarking, virtual machines, and installation for more than two major revisions of hardware- because that's what we've CAUGHT. Who is to say what is in the fine print that we have completely missed.....and all of that will be in the final EULA.
The other side already considers it a world war- one foretold by scripture, one in which the entire world will be subject to the Justice of Allah. It is that dream of JUSTICE, not a dream for freedom, that drives them. The only thing keeping us relatively safe is that the other side can't agree on a definition of justice- yet.
Slashdot Mirror
It's already important. My company has been looking for a Sr DBA for over two months. There have been several candidates that are well qualified on paper, but they lack the interpersonal skills and ability to formulate ideas & present them well in the interview. If you're interested in computer science, I might recommend a major in business with a minor in comp sci.
Your problem is that you are looking for an oxymoron. I guarantee anybody who has GOOD DBA skills will not have interpersonal skills, and anybody with interpersonal skills will not be a good DBA. Those two skillsets are mutually exclusive.
This is why I abandoned private industry- it's full of stupid pointy-haired bosses who want the impossible, and if you don't give it to them, will fire you.
Applied science is engineering. Get an SET degree, and do your due dilligence before accepting the many abusive positions that exist out there.
If we had more programmers with SE degrees we'd have fewer crappy websites. A CS degree doesn't give you the engineering knowledge neccessary to keep your code clean or your site loading fast.
Just wanted to make sure. This is, after all, an autistic medium, stripping the emotion out of the writing as it is transmitted.
If you're a really good programmer, you can probably make a go of it on your own doing freelance work.
I tried that between 2001 and 2003. What you need for that isn't good programming- it's good business sense and a fair amount of ESP. You need to be a good enough judge of character to know who will pay their bill and who won't when you present that final invoice. Far too many failed to pay that final invoice- and no business can survive a 50% decrease in revenue in a single month unless you were independantly wealthy going in.
Unfortuneately most programmers- me included- went into this because we *don't* have good interpersonal skills, otherwise we would have been playing sports in high school instead of messing with computers.
Actually, I was just pointing out that people like my Father-in-law, who is afraid to get Comcast Internet service lest his computer make him sick (he's heard too much about these damned computer viruses, and doesn't understand the difference between cyberspace and real space) will *also* never be polled by this method. But 20 years from now they'll all be dead.
If you depend on private industry- job security to these idiots means 2 years and you're out searching again. So what if there is plenty of opportunity if you never vest into your vacation time, let alone any other benefits? So do what I did- tell private industry to go learn to program their own computers and join government instead- where at least you can be assured you'll have a job tomorrow.
After 2001, I'll never trust the stock market or private industry ever again. Driving a truck is better than doing IT work for idiots.
People who care enough to blog, care enough to vote. The real answer to this is that he's found a way to construct a poll made up entirely of likely voters, and NO non-voters. I suspect that this 80% accuracy rate will get better as time goes on (and the older Luddites die). I also suspect his accuracy rate would have been somewhat less say, had he used this technique in the 2004 Presidential election (because federal country-wide elections would beat the signal to noise ratio).
The interesting thing in this though is the potential death knoll for Single User Windows Only Desktops. If everything proprietary in Windows can be run in Suse Linux, and everything in Suse Linux can be run on the Microsoft Virtual Machine, then there is no longer any need to keep a separate Windows machine around.
Bamboo, hemp, and Weyerhouser Super Trees all grow fast enough to achieve this rate of increase.
And all of these are good for lumber, which is good for the timber industry, which increases the number of jobs available.
Once a tree is done, after 5-80 years, absorbing all of the carbon it can, you can either let it die and rot which puts the carbon back in the atmosphere, or you can cut it down and turn it into lumber, which you use to build a house, which if you do it correctly will lock the carbon up in a structure for a century or more *beyond* the life of the tree.
Which do you think would do more good for global warming?
Actually it would be a great thing for the timber industry. Once a tree is done, after 80 years, absorbing all of the carbon it can, you can either let it die and rot which puts the carbon back in the atmosphere, or you can cut it down and turn it into lumber, which you use to build a house, which if you do it correctly will lock the carbon up in a structure for a century or more *beyond* the life of the tree.
Which do you think would do more good for global warming?
Trees cut for lumber lock up the carbon for longer periods of time than trees left to rot. After all, who tears down their own house on purpose?
Just remember to leave enough farmland to keep you fed. You don't want to go back to picking berries, do you?
Well, you see, that's the real neat thing about this solution- nothing stopping us from using fruit trees for this purpose. We can have the best effects of both.
Kinda difficult to maintain 300 mill people in the US that way. Imagine the LA/NY people going out to the forest for a foraging trip every day of the year.
Might do us some good, just from the weight loss....
You gotta love that. Fancy suit people picking strawberries. Lovely.
It is exactly what this country needs.
Well, for that matter, I'm not real sure anybody has a monopoly on reality at all. Yes, you bring up the ether experiments as an example- but that wasn't exactly held as dogma by any of the scientists involved, now was it? Try this one on for size: objective evidence is impossible for human beings to gather because of imperfections in the human nervous system that makes eyewitness accounts unreliable even when repeatable.
Now having said that- I believe global warming exists. I believe it's a dire problem. I'm not sure I believe mankind has that huge of an effect- but I also believe it doesn't matter what caused it, the real engineering problem is how to deal with it. And thus my answer- plant biomass.
So you're plan for fixing climate change is to turn the US into a rainforest by changing the climate?
Considering that before late 1800s and early 1900s clear cut logging destroyed the Western Rain Forest, I'd call that RESTORING climate. But yes, I'm suggesting we engineer the climate to something that supports human life.
I mean it's not like most of the US recieves enough rainfall each year to make it even close to a rain forest.
As they proved in Israel- plant trees and the rain will come. That was one of the *big* terraforming success stories of the last century- too bad the recent Hezbollah war wiped out much of it with forest fires from missiles that failed to hit their targets.
It seems to me that once we have a gigantic weather control machine capable of causing rainfall over the entire US we won't need to go to all of that trouble to plant trees, we can just turn the thermostat down on the weather machine.
The trees are a part of the weather machine. Do you know why a rain forest is a rain forest? The rain doesn't come from clouds- it comes from moisture trapped in the upper canopy. Some of that comes from rain- but it continues to drip for weeks and even months after a storm.
When biomass dies, it either rots or is burnt.
Yes, which then goes to feed more biomass- the idea is to match our logrithmic curve of carbon production with a logrithmic curve of biomass creation.
As much as I'd like the answer to Global Warming to be as simple as planting a few trees, it really isn't. Tree planting has its place, but isn't nearly as effective as reduction in man-made CO2 levels.
Actually, if you could just replace the area lost in the Brazilian rain forest in the last 3 years, you'd do more than 20 Kyoto Accords put together. Trees are *extremely* efficient in this, and some trees that we've found that grow here in America can survive up to 20 centuries if taken care of.
The answer to global warming is *very* simple, and *very* well known. We just need to plant massive amounts of biomass to soak up all the excess carbon. We just need to turn the United States into a temperate rain forest- with enough variety to ensure tree survival and food production from the rain forest itself. Lock up that carbon in wood- and then use the wood to build houses- locking up the carbon for decades, maybe centuries...
Except that few viruses go beyond HardDisk1 for wiping data. Why should they, as long as they hit the boot drive?
Yes, but the point still stands. For 90% of Windows viruses out there, the user has to do something. Forcing them to log out when they're not using the system doesn't help this one bit; the infection happens when they're *using* the computer. For the other 10%, well, you have taken the time to turn off unneeded services, and you have spent the $30 to get them a broadband hardware firewall, right? If you do those two things, XP firewall and a copy of AVG will take care of most of the rest, and limit you to spending an hour or two running Hijack This and Adaware twice a year. If you also include an automatic backup system like Roxio's GoBack, then you're golden- even if they lose their data, just ask them when they last used the computer and it was working and revert the drive.
You'll NEVER convince them that they're not a target- so the real key is to configure the system to give them the convience they crave while minimizing YOUR time working on security. Then charge them $25/hr for your time to keep the stupid questions to a minimum.
I'm not talking about enterprise-level things such as card swipes and fingerprint scanners, just simple measures like logging off of the PC when it's not in use.
It's been my experience that 95% of Windows viruses require some sort of stupid user action to install and spread. Logging off the PC will not help in that situation. Minimizing the machine's online presence will help far more: turn off unneeded services, use both software and hardware firewalls, and finally, make sure Preview mode is turned off in both Outlook and Outlook express. Finally, just make it a point every six months to run Hijack This, make sure AVG is up to date, and run several spyware scanners, and charge them $25/hr for the service.
You're completely right about people of a certain generation choosing convience over security- but there are things YOU can do to keep them safe in spite of themselves.
It's the eyecandy that eats up the extra resources- I don't think activation counts for much.
And the only EULA that counts is the one you buy with software or hardware- this is just the beta to see what we'll be outraged by.
Is the one displayed when you get your new machine. I have a feeling that this is just a marketing intelligence test- they've put out this EULA to see what we notice, and more importantly, what we don't. Based on the reports I've seen, the final version of the EULA will allow benchmarking, virtual machines, and installation for more than two major revisions of hardware- because that's what we've CAUGHT. Who is to say what is in the fine print that we have completely missed.....and all of that will be in the final EULA.
With only 512MB of Ram, you're at the lower end even for XP. I'd consider Win2k on such a machine.
The other side already considers it a world war- one foretold by scripture, one in which the entire world will be subject to the Justice of Allah. It is that dream of JUSTICE, not a dream for freedom, that drives them. The only thing keeping us relatively safe is that the other side can't agree on a definition of justice- yet.