It was mathematically impossible for them to get a veto-proof majority of the Senate in 2006. You do know about the whole 6-year-term thing right?
Yelling at me to "shut up", because I'm pointing out that the Democrats lied and promised things they couldn't possibly deliver, well, sure, go ahead, have the last word. Let me guess, it'll be an insult about my mother this time?
51:49 isn't an effective majority. You need 2/3rds of the Senate in order to control it, otherwise the GOP can and has completely shut down any bill that they don't like.
Please, (re)take high school Civics and learn about how our Congress works before posting anything political.
You repeat the same noise, while avoiding my actual point. I _know_ how it works. The Democrats who ran for congress _also_ know how it works, yet they lied and said they could change things that clearly, they were unwilling and unable to change. Resorting to personal insults while avoiding my point says rather a lot about your point of view.
The Democrats only have one half of Congress, everything they try to pass in the House gets destroyed by the deadlocked Senate, where the Democrats do not hold an overwhelming majority. After that, they have to try to get past a President that is among the most stubborn ever. Besides this, they've only held it for 2 years now, and have had to try to clean up the mess from the previous 8 years of a fully Republican controlled Congress.
Did you fail Civics class in high school, or did you just forget how our government works?
There's fail here, oh yes, but it's in your characterization of the situation. Tell me, how does the "independent" Lieberman align, exactly? Without him, it's 50:49, with him it's 51:49. Which of these are you pretending isn't a majority, and please show your work. My point was and is, they promised to fix it, they have had a majority in both houses for 2 years, and haven't fixed it. They were lying when they said they would and could. They KNEW they couldn't and wouldn't. But they said it anyway, and people voted for them. And now, the're going to fall for the whole "change something! Anything!" thing once again.
Just wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will happen if Obama gets in. "Wait, I didn't want him to change that!"...
When asked Mac or PC McCain responded "Neither I am an illiterate when it comes to computers and I rely on my wife for that". This has absolutely nothing to do with broken arms or the ability to type. The man admitted he just plain doesn't use computers.
Um, so what? I don't need the guy to fix my laptop, I need him to lead the country, interact with foreign nations, be commander in chief, all that stuff. I don't care if he's a VI guy or an EMACS guy, it's as irrelevant as his eye color to the job that needs to be done.
It's interesting...about 6 months ago, Barack Obama joined linkedin.com's forums. I asked him a question at that time if he was there to actually participate, or was just going for free exposure. More eloquently worded of course but that was the basic point I made. The only response I got, was an invite to connect from "him". I guess by not answering my question, he answered it. Technology is just a tool for him to exploit to get to his goal. If you think it matters one bit if or how much either of these guys is connected, you're delusional.
All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. (BIG SNIP) (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).
Maybe WindBourne meant the Apollo program, not NASA.
Or maybe he's just another person so blinded by his biases that he thinks he's right. I didn't even go into the whole NACA thing which predates NASA by what, 40 years? And which, I'm pretty sure, neither Kennedy nor Al Gore "took the initiative in creating", all things considered.
Unfortunately a 50-49-1 majority in the Senate isn't enough to overcome a veto-happy President. No matter who wins the presidency, the Democrats will gain 6 or more seats in the Senate. That will be a game changer, I promise. And if they get 60 seats (a distinct possibility considering the Republican "brand" is in the toilet) you're going to see the approval rating for Congress go up.
Yup, like I said, you're gonna buy into it yet again. It'd be funny to watch if it wasn't so sad to see. They'll still promise things they have no ability or motivation to actually do, and yet, people have been falling for it for probably generations. Politicians lie to get elected. They promise to do things they won't do, and will then find ways to blame the opposition for their own failure to deliver on their promises. Your post is a perfect example of it - despite majorities in the house & senate, their failure to "work together with the president" is, of course, all HIS fault.
And it keeps working. And you defend them for it. Amazing.
Did the 2006 Congressional Democrats get the troops out of Iraq like they promised yet?
Bush might be Commander in Chief, but Congress controls the purse strings...
Hush now, we're only supposed to notice it when Republicans do it, remember? Democrats get a free pass.
All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. (BIG SNIP) (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).
Of course when I point out that McCain/Palin is the Creationist ticket, that McCain/Palin will lie to a questionnaire until they get power to do whatever they want, the Republican TrollMods come out of the woodwork to call it "troll", rather than actually try to prove I'm wrong. Because they can't.
Riiiiight, because the Democrats don't lie and promise things they won't and/or can't deliver, is that what you're claiming? (cough)2006 congressional elections (/cough) Face it, they promised a bunch of stuff that they knew they couldn't deliver, have an even lower approval rating than Bush, and...people like you are gonna fall for it yet again this November. It's almost painful to see you calling out the right for doing what the left has done for years, and you seem not to notice it because of where your selective blindness lies.
Err. Have you ever tried this with a brand new game that requires 3D acceleration? Yes VMWare has some support for DirectX but for performance it doesn't come close to running the game in a dual boot configuration.
For regular Windows applications VMWare or Parallels works fine of course.
Also if you are a Mac owner and you really want access to PC games without hoping or waiting for a port, you can install Windows via bootcamp. Of course Linux users on x86 have the same option.
If you don't want to dual boot then you have to make do with what's available.
Er, actually, not true for several years already. vmware (30 bucks) lets you install a Windows OS if you want, and run windows apps with it as if they're just another app in the MacOS screens. Looks just like another app running, it works transparently. No dual-booting required.
What? I never referred to anything about threatening a wife's dad. I don't know anything about this case - but was responding merely that you wrote that someone being somebody's nephew should make a difference to their treatment by police.
At least you're honest that you're commenting without being informed. And yes, when the person being discussed is a cop with a long history of domestic violence, the fact that the guy he taser'd for invalid reasons was his nephew, is relevant.
You reply seems to be a non-sequitur. What I was asking is why tazing an officer's nephew should be treated any differently than tazing any other member of the public. You didn't say anything about inappropriate tazing - the fact that you referenced the nephew was the only way you distinguished it from any other random tazing. Cops taze a lot of people, you know.
Actually it appears that you just missed my point. Threatinging the wife's dad, and tazing the nephew, shows a pattern of not just violence, but domestic violence. Which probably indicates a personality defect that a reasonable person wouldn't want acting as a cop.
Are you saying that a cop that tazer's his own nephew
Are you saying that just because somebody is related to a police officer, they should have some sort of immunity or special treatment from the police?
Please don't try to speak for me. Here, let's try this in a way you might understand that is equally relevant. If you had someone whose job performance you were responsible, who abused a tool of his job, whose boss refused to act on a fireable offense, would you deal with it? If not, why not? Say his job was to maintain medical records and he pulled records for someone he wasn't treating - no different, ethically, from tazering somoene who didn't need it. Would you ask his boss WTF they were thinking in not fixing the problem? Because I sure the hell would, or MY boss would ask me why I didn't fix it. Accountability works both ways. If the public hired me to take care of business, and someone who I had doing same for a subset of my responsible areas failed to do so, you're damn right I'm gonna come down on them and the person they're protecting.
Is it likely that she knew about this because the cop's death threat was to her own dad? Of course. Does that mean she should NOT have fired the guy? Hell no.
No, because he's using the typical "make up the opponent's point of view in such a way as to make it easy to discredit" rhetorical tactic, which doesn't work ever.
How is it that when Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" he was a HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING, but when Sarah Palin admits to smoking marijuana, she's perfectly OK? Is it because she "didn't like it"?
No, it's because she didn't lie to us and assume we're not all idiots. I don't give a shiat how someone gets their kicks, just don't insult my intelligence and assume you can lie to me without me knowing it.
It's sad when someone with a valid and/or interesting point doesn't have the balls to post under their posting ID. How many people miss your POV because you post as an AC?
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. If someone who worked for me had a subordinate who was abusing his position, and failed to act, I'd ask them WTF they were doing, why, and if the answer didn't satisfy me, they'd be gone too. If I'm held responsible for the actions of those who report to me (I am), then I'm damn well going to make sure that they're responsible for that trust. If the cop reported to cop-boss, who reported to me, and they messed up bad, and cop-boss refused to fire him for it, I'd fire cop-boss. It's about accountability. No different than in my field where, say, a sysadmin does something stupid and causes (problem). If his team-lead didn't whack him hard, I'd have to whack them both. That's how leadership and accountability work.
Ethical scandal? Really? She pushed for the firing of some cop who tazer'd his own nephew, and then threatened the life of his soon-to-be-ex father in law? Seems like a fireable offense to me. Regardless of how she's related to the family.
The ethical scandal is that she then got the commissioner fired for not doing as she wished. *That* is the big problem... she is, just like the current executive, intolerant of people who are not yes-men.
The "doing as she wished" part he wouldn't do, was firing a cop for a clear abuse of trust. Seems to me if you're refusing to fire someone who needs firing, then yeah, you're gonna go AND he's gonna go. Not sure how my business situation would be any different, or probably yours. For it to be an ethical scandal, the actions would need to be the wrong things to do.
Are you saying that a cop that tazer's his own nephew, and threatens the life of his ex-wife's dad, shouldn't be fired?
I, for one, do not want another my-way-or-the-highway executive, because no person is infallible.
I think that the opposite of your claim is true: McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme. Sure Palin is a hard right social conservative. But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska.
Ethical scandal? Really? She pushed for the firing of some cop who tazer'd his own nephew, and then threatened the life of his soon-to-be-ex father in law? Seems like a fireable offense to me. Regardless of how she's related to the family.
The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency. Of course they're a bit inconsistent on this.
Pardon, but I think perhaps you may not be qualified to speak for "the social conservatives".
If you've ever stood near a pizza oven (a typical one, which is what this method will utilize), you know that no little amount of energy is lost into the surrounding area. In both places that I've worked in which Pizza was made, the room containing the oven wouldn't drop below 99F unless the oven was actually turned off.
Right, but this is a case of that energy cost not being wasted cost - if you're doing this in a building that needs heating, there's your heat source. It's a furnace for the building, and it makes solar panels. Two uses for that same energy. As long as you don't remove the panels from the building while they're still hot, you haven't wasted _any_ energy in making them.
Co-generation has been around for a while - another example would be running the radiator for your generator into the house, blow air through it. What would have been waste heat, now gets dumped into the space where it's useful.
A lot of these "studies" that claim to look at how much something costs, consider just how much fuel it takes to run the oven or whatever, and don't consider the possibility of uses of "waste heat" like this. So yes, more piggybacking on your post than disagreeing with it - the payback time you mention might be even sooner, if they were gonna burn that fuel to heat the place anyway.
Right, it's kind of liking France but not liking the French. An apparent logical disconnect unless you actually go there, and then you'll understand pretty much right away. Beautiful country, fantastic architecture and history - and full of smelly, rude, and, well, French people.
And for the management types who are reading this, start rotating your admins among different projects, at least annually. Take the Linux expert and put him in charge of Active Directory; take the Windows expert and put him in charge of the SAN; take the SAN guy and put him in charge of the Cisco and Foundry routers.
That's one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. The only thing that's going to accomplish is to let you spend more time interviewing new employees, because sorry, no, I'm NOT an AD guy, I don't WANT to be an AD guy, you HAVE an AD guy, and I don't want that job. That's why I took _this_ job. Rotating people into something unrelated to their specialty is just going to generate thrash, and your smart ones will leave, leaving you with the ones who are too dumb or lazy to take the effort to find a better boss.
Shake things up, force people to work outside of their comfort zones. Not only will it encourage your staff to constantly learn (which is a good thing with geeks, we like learning), it will make sure your documentation is top notch since everyone knows they're going to depend on that documentation to do their jobs.
ROFL. You can't really be serious. Documentation always lags in admin jobs. If you're overworking your techs, they won't write docs because they're going from one fire to another, and may have the best intentions of going back to document what they did, but, by that time, they're on to the fire after that, and never do. And I really can't even imagine how forcing me to change what job I'm doing, would inspire me to be _better_ about writing documentation.
All of you young admins out there: learn from his mistakes, and don't repeat them.
That much is true. You don't own the hardware, but it's good that you care about it as if you do - when appropriate. Do I refer to them as "my servers"? Hell yes. My pager goes off, I am accountable for them, so they're mine. And at 5:00 PM I hand them over to second shift, and they become their servers. If I leave, I care enough about them that I'll leave good handoff notes, for the servers formerly known as mine.
As far as your forced job rotation plan and your thoughts that it'd make for happier people and better documentation, sorry, but that just isn't going to work. The geek mindset is "Here's something interesting, I want to work on that", not "Boss is forcing me to do something entirely outside of my area of interest, woo-hoo!"
> hundreds of feet down into bedrock
Which, by that time, might be two feet deep from the surface. Who knows what could happen to our planet in the next 10.000 years? Some small cataclysm? Damn Big Earthquake? Meteorite? (just wondering)
You're joking, right? 10,000 years, in a geologic timeframe? You _DO_ know how old Yucca Mountain is, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
It was mathematically impossible for them to get a veto-proof majority of the Senate in 2006. You do know about the whole 6-year-term thing right?
Yelling at me to "shut up", because I'm pointing out that the Democrats lied and promised things they couldn't possibly deliver, well, sure, go ahead, have the last word. Let me guess, it'll be an insult about my mother this time?
51:49 isn't an effective majority. You need 2/3rds of the Senate in order to control it, otherwise the GOP can and has completely shut down any bill that they don't like.
Please, (re)take high school Civics and learn about how our Congress works before posting anything political.
You repeat the same noise, while avoiding my actual point. I _know_ how it works. The Democrats who ran for congress _also_ know how it works, yet they lied and said they could change things that clearly, they were unwilling and unable to change. Resorting to personal insults while avoiding my point says rather a lot about your point of view.
The Democrats only have one half of Congress, everything they try to pass in the House gets destroyed by the deadlocked Senate, where the Democrats do not hold an overwhelming majority. After that, they have to try to get past a President that is among the most stubborn ever. Besides this, they've only held it for 2 years now, and have had to try to clean up the mess from the previous 8 years of a fully Republican controlled Congress.
Did you fail Civics class in high school, or did you just forget how our government works?
There's fail here, oh yes, but it's in your characterization of the situation. Tell me, how does the "independent" Lieberman align, exactly? Without him, it's 50:49, with him it's 51:49. Which of these are you pretending isn't a majority, and please show your work. My point was and is, they promised to fix it, they have had a majority in both houses for 2 years, and haven't fixed it. They were lying when they said they would and could. They KNEW they couldn't and wouldn't. But they said it anyway, and people voted for them. And now, the're going to fall for the whole "change something! Anything!" thing once again.
Just wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will happen if Obama gets in. "Wait, I didn't want him to change that!"...
When asked Mac or PC McCain responded "Neither I am an illiterate when it comes to computers and I rely on my wife for that". This has absolutely nothing to do with broken arms or the ability to type. The man admitted he just plain doesn't use computers.
Um, so what? I don't need the guy to fix my laptop, I need him to lead the country, interact with foreign nations, be commander in chief, all that stuff. I don't care if he's a VI guy or an EMACS guy, it's as irrelevant as his eye color to the job that needs to be done.
It's interesting...about 6 months ago, Barack Obama joined linkedin.com's forums. I asked him a question at that time if he was there to actually participate, or was just going for free exposure. More eloquently worded of course but that was the basic point I made. The only response I got, was an invite to connect from "him". I guess by not answering my question, he answered it. Technology is just a tool for him to exploit to get to his goal. If you think it matters one bit if or how much either of these guys is connected, you're delusional.
All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. (BIG SNIP) (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).
JFK started NASA? Really? I find that somewhat surprising given the dates involved.
Maybe WindBourne meant the Apollo program, not NASA.
Or maybe he's just another person so blinded by his biases that he thinks he's right. I didn't even go into the whole NACA thing which predates NASA by what, 40 years? And which, I'm pretty sure, neither Kennedy nor Al Gore "took the initiative in creating", all things considered.
Unfortunately a 50-49-1 majority in the Senate isn't enough to overcome a veto-happy President. No matter who wins the presidency, the Democrats will gain 6 or more seats in the Senate. That will be a game changer, I promise. And if they get 60 seats (a distinct possibility considering the Republican "brand" is in the toilet) you're going to see the approval rating for Congress go up.
Yup, like I said, you're gonna buy into it yet again. It'd be funny to watch if it wasn't so sad to see. They'll still promise things they have no ability or motivation to actually do, and yet, people have been falling for it for probably generations. Politicians lie to get elected. They promise to do things they won't do, and will then find ways to blame the opposition for their own failure to deliver on their promises. Your post is a perfect example of it - despite majorities in the house & senate, their failure to "work together with the president" is, of course, all HIS fault.
And it keeps working. And you defend them for it. Amazing.
Did the 2006 Congressional Democrats get the troops out of Iraq like they promised yet? Bush might be Commander in Chief, but Congress controls the purse strings...
Hush now, we're only supposed to notice it when Republicans do it, remember? Democrats get a free pass.
All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. (BIG SNIP) (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).
JFK started NASA? Really? I find that somewhat surprising given the dates involved.
Moderation 0 50% Insightful 50% Troll
Of course when I point out that McCain/Palin is the Creationist ticket, that McCain/Palin will lie to a questionnaire until they get power to do whatever they want, the Republican TrollMods come out of the woodwork to call it "troll", rather than actually try to prove I'm wrong. Because they can't.
Riiiiight, because the Democrats don't lie and promise things they won't and/or can't deliver, is that what you're claiming? (cough)2006 congressional elections (/cough) Face it, they promised a bunch of stuff that they knew they couldn't deliver, have an even lower approval rating than Bush, and...people like you are gonna fall for it yet again this November. It's almost painful to see you calling out the right for doing what the left has done for years, and you seem not to notice it because of where your selective blindness lies.
Sorry, LSD, this is the apple-hating thread, not the rant-about-wasting-jail-space-on-potheads thread.
Err. Have you ever tried this with a brand new game that requires 3D acceleration? Yes VMWare has some support for DirectX but for performance it doesn't come close to running the game in a dual boot configuration. For regular Windows applications VMWare or Parallels works fine of course.
Sorry, thought we were talking about WoW?
Also if you are a Mac owner and you really want access to PC games without hoping or waiting for a port, you can install Windows via bootcamp. Of course Linux users on x86 have the same option. If you don't want to dual boot then you have to make do with what's available.
Er, actually, not true for several years already. vmware (30 bucks) lets you install a Windows OS if you want, and run windows apps with it as if they're just another app in the MacOS screens. Looks just like another app running, it works transparently. No dual-booting required.
What? I never referred to anything about threatening a wife's dad. I don't know anything about this case - but was responding merely that you wrote that someone being somebody's nephew should make a difference to their treatment by police.
At least you're honest that you're commenting without being informed. And yes, when the person being discussed is a cop with a long history of domestic violence, the fact that the guy he taser'd for invalid reasons was his nephew, is relevant.
You reply seems to be a non-sequitur. What I was asking is why tazing an officer's nephew should be treated any differently than tazing any other member of the public. You didn't say anything about inappropriate tazing - the fact that you referenced the nephew was the only way you distinguished it from any other random tazing. Cops taze a lot of people, you know.
Actually it appears that you just missed my point. Threatinging the wife's dad, and tazing the nephew, shows a pattern of not just violence, but domestic violence. Which probably indicates a personality defect that a reasonable person wouldn't want acting as a cop.
Are you saying that a cop that tazer's his own nephew
Are you saying that just because somebody is related to a police officer, they should have some sort of immunity or special treatment from the police?
Please don't try to speak for me. Here, let's try this in a way you might understand that is equally relevant. If you had someone whose job performance you were responsible, who abused a tool of his job, whose boss refused to act on a fireable offense, would you deal with it? If not, why not? Say his job was to maintain medical records and he pulled records for someone he wasn't treating - no different, ethically, from tazering somoene who didn't need it. Would you ask his boss WTF they were thinking in not fixing the problem? Because I sure the hell would, or MY boss would ask me why I didn't fix it. Accountability works both ways. If the public hired me to take care of business, and someone who I had doing same for a subset of my responsible areas failed to do so, you're damn right I'm gonna come down on them and the person they're protecting.
Is it likely that she knew about this because the cop's death threat was to her own dad? Of course. Does that mean she should NOT have fired the guy? Hell no.
No, because he's using the typical "make up the opponent's point of view in such a way as to make it easy to discredit" rhetorical tactic, which doesn't work ever.
How is it that when Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" he was a HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING, but when Sarah Palin admits to smoking marijuana, she's perfectly OK? Is it because she "didn't like it"?
No, it's because she didn't lie to us and assume we're not all idiots. I don't give a shiat how someone gets their kicks, just don't insult my intelligence and assume you can lie to me without me knowing it.
You claim she's violated any of these? Do tell.
It's sad when someone with a valid and/or interesting point doesn't have the balls to post under their posting ID. How many people miss your POV because you post as an AC?
Oh, I'm not so sure about that. If someone who worked for me had a subordinate who was abusing his position, and failed to act, I'd ask them WTF they were doing, why, and if the answer didn't satisfy me, they'd be gone too. If I'm held responsible for the actions of those who report to me (I am), then I'm damn well going to make sure that they're responsible for that trust. If the cop reported to cop-boss, who reported to me, and they messed up bad, and cop-boss refused to fire him for it, I'd fire cop-boss. It's about accountability. No different than in my field where, say, a sysadmin does something stupid and causes (problem). If his team-lead didn't whack him hard, I'd have to whack them both. That's how leadership and accountability work.
The ethical scandal is that she then got the commissioner fired for not doing as she wished. *That* is the big problem... she is, just like the current executive, intolerant of people who are not yes-men.
The "doing as she wished" part he wouldn't do, was firing a cop for a clear abuse of trust. Seems to me if you're refusing to fire someone who needs firing, then yeah, you're gonna go AND he's gonna go. Not sure how my business situation would be any different, or probably yours. For it to be an ethical scandal, the actions would need to be the wrong things to do.
Are you saying that a cop that tazer's his own nephew, and threatens the life of his ex-wife's dad, shouldn't be fired?
I, for one, do not want another my-way-or-the-highway executive, because no person is infallible.
Maybe the nephew really deserved to be tazered.
I think that the opposite of your claim is true: McCain is doomed. He just destroyed the "Obama doesn't have the experience to lead" meme. Sure Palin is a hard right social conservative. But she also happens to be an ex-beauty queen with an ethical scandal in Alaska.
Ethical scandal? Really? She pushed for the firing of some cop who tazer'd his own nephew, and then threatened the life of his soon-to-be-ex father in law? Seems like a fireable offense to me. Regardless of how she's related to the family.
The social conservatives claim that women should be at home, not running for the Vice Presidency. Of course they're a bit inconsistent on this.
Pardon, but I think perhaps you may not be qualified to speak for "the social conservatives".
Right, but this is a case of that energy cost not being wasted cost - if you're doing this in a building that needs heating, there's your heat source. It's a furnace for the building, and it makes solar panels. Two uses for that same energy. As long as you don't remove the panels from the building while they're still hot, you haven't wasted _any_ energy in making them.
Co-generation has been around for a while - another example would be running the radiator for your generator into the house, blow air through it. What would have been waste heat, now gets dumped into the space where it's useful.
A lot of these "studies" that claim to look at how much something costs, consider just how much fuel it takes to run the oven or whatever, and don't consider the possibility of uses of "waste heat" like this. So yes, more piggybacking on your post than disagreeing with it - the payback time you mention might be even sooner, if they were gonna burn that fuel to heat the place anyway.
Right, it's kind of liking France but not liking the French. An apparent logical disconnect unless you actually go there, and then you'll understand pretty much right away. Beautiful country, fantastic architecture and history - and full of smelly, rude, and, well, French people.
And for the management types who are reading this, start rotating your admins among different projects, at least annually. Take the Linux expert and put him in charge of Active Directory; take the Windows expert and put him in charge of the SAN; take the SAN guy and put him in charge of the Cisco and Foundry routers.
That's one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time. The only thing that's going to accomplish is to let you spend more time interviewing new employees, because sorry, no, I'm NOT an AD guy, I don't WANT to be an AD guy, you HAVE an AD guy, and I don't want that job. That's why I took _this_ job. Rotating people into something unrelated to their specialty is just going to generate thrash, and your smart ones will leave, leaving you with the ones who are too dumb or lazy to take the effort to find a better boss.
Shake things up, force people to work outside of their comfort zones. Not only will it encourage your staff to constantly learn (which is a good thing with geeks, we like learning), it will make sure your documentation is top notch since everyone knows they're going to depend on that documentation to do their jobs.
ROFL. You can't really be serious. Documentation always lags in admin jobs. If you're overworking your techs, they won't write docs because they're going from one fire to another, and may have the best intentions of going back to document what they did, but, by that time, they're on to the fire after that, and never do. And I really can't even imagine how forcing me to change what job I'm doing, would inspire me to be _better_ about writing documentation.
All of you young admins out there: learn from his mistakes, and don't repeat them.
That much is true. You don't own the hardware, but it's good that you care about it as if you do - when appropriate. Do I refer to them as "my servers"? Hell yes. My pager goes off, I am accountable for them, so they're mine. And at 5:00 PM I hand them over to second shift, and they become their servers. If I leave, I care enough about them that I'll leave good handoff notes, for the servers formerly known as mine.
As far as your forced job rotation plan and your thoughts that it'd make for happier people and better documentation, sorry, but that just isn't going to work. The geek mindset is "Here's something interesting, I want to work on that", not "Boss is forcing me to do something entirely outside of my area of interest, woo-hoo!"
> hundreds of feet down into bedrock Which, by that time, might be two feet deep from the surface. Who knows what could happen to our planet in the next 10.000 years? Some small cataclysm? Damn Big Earthquake? Meteorite? (just wondering)
You're joking, right? 10,000 years, in a geologic timeframe? You _DO_ know how old Yucca Mountain is, don't you?