this guy's an idiot. he admits to not knowing the subject matter well but still wants to chastise programmers for not being experts?!! that's his first epic fail, his 2nd is that programmers aren't meant to be experts in every area, only at programming. people that have double degree's and years of experience in a field are the only ones who should be, and they will be in lead roles.p
his 3rd fail is how he makes his arguement, it reminds me of a child throwing itself on it's back and kicking it's legs till it gets it's own way.
even though i now work with sql server, i did work with postgresql for 2 years solid prior. it's a kick arse DB, containing so many features it was ms sql's equal even back then. while not as speedy out of the box as sql server or oracle in some instances, it wasn't far behind either and the price was certainly right with a great support community.
monty's just an idiot, he sold mysql and now whinges about it.
it's ironic that 10 years ago many professional applications used dongles for licensing and access. now it's basiclly comming back in.
i think it's a good thing though, if it wasn't for lax security there wouldn't be so many theifing pricks in the world. no we just need to convince credit companies to use the same level of security that a bloody computer game uses and we might all be better off.
the chinese don't tend to be terribly inventive is their problem. from what i've seen, they tend to suffer a cultural thing "it's been done this way for 1000 years, it's how we will continue". what they are good at is taking an idea and doing it for 1/10th the price and in 1/2 the time.
as their exposure to the west increases this will change i'm sure, but for now most of the innovatino is still going to come from the USA and other western countries.
the fact that you know what adsense is and that you want to advertise places you a million miles ahed of your average phone consumer. google has never had to stand up to the rigors of low intelligence PAYING customers before.
you won't be talking to that type of person though, it'll be a sales rep saying you can't purchase that volume license without an audit. it is highly unlikely MS would pull it randomly.
if you let them in the door then you will be talking with auditors, who generally are NOT on the same level of insurance investigators. i've dealt with then a few times (not software auditors though) they are only ever concerned with covering their own arses so they feel safe signing off on the audits completion.
that doesn't work because they will respond with "ok we will prove it, our auditors will be there monday" and when you refuse you just look guilty. it's better to just look stupid and waste 100's of hours of their time till they give up.
MS might want you to take a software audit when you buy ne licenses. so in that respect if you need to upgrade they can make it part of the deal.
personally i can't see how the manager of any company worth his salt couldn't stone wall this. first you would play dumb - really dumb -. then once they had spelt out a few times what they wanted you'd put up a few objections that don't make any sense. follow this up with a few feature questions to taking them off down another track and they will probably be ready to drop the matter on their own for all the time you are chewing up. if you've got an rep that is really switched on and sticking to his guns, then you would go to phase 2 where you demand they explain why this benefits you the customer, ask how it makes you money. kick and scream threaten to go over to a different platform, get quotes showing it'd be worth it and send it to them. after this it'd be a miracle if they persisted. obviously if they just showed up you'd kick them out the door.
google doesn't have any experience fielding public customer service - all their products are free to the public with some commercial products that i guess would generate some limited helpdesk demands.
it's little wonder this is biting them in the arse.
I was just thinking this. i reckon they should change the design in mexico to a big american flag with the statue of liberty giving the finger. i know i'd buy one!
instead of whining about MS's success, why don't you all go out and beat directX at it's own game - an easy to use 3d gaming API. openGL is NOT as easy and thus more expensive to write games in.
if all these people wrote code instead of rants you'd be a little closer by now.
i'm with you there. the image should NEVER be stored, only fed live to a screen where the agent gets to make a call on pulling the person aside or not. the person viewing also shouldn't be allowed to see the person being scanned, eliminating bias.
http://vetmed.illinois.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=413
if you google around you'll see the links are very clear, especially with young children. once they become comfortable abusing animals, when they grow up abusing people become 2nd nature to them.
Obviously people performing research aren't going to suddenly become killers, but i think as a society the attitude that it's ok to hurt animals needs to be fought, since it rubs off on the next generation. you don't want people to be detached from the suffering they inflict on other living things.
excuse me, but that's bullshit. your trying to say if we stopped animal research mortality rates would somehow massively increase? back that up please.
and no one is condoning mis treatment of animals in agriculture either. the things most farmers do to pigs and chickens is disgusting. i always buy free range, for that reason, and also because they are tastier.
the whole point i'm trying to make is it's ok to use animals, but we should always strive to be humane about it.
plants can't feel pain, they have no nervous system buddy. like we said, it's not the killing, it's the suffering. i'm pro right to die as well btw, i don't think you should let humans suffer either.
here's the thing, if you are putting a chemical into a shampoo you think might blind someone, wtf are you doing?!?! burning out some poor animals eye while it squeals in pain isn't worth it imho. buy dead animals (there's a whole market out there of animals that died from natural causes or are humanely put down for various reasons) or test it out on a synthetic analog.
we have a good enough grasp on chemistry that such experiements on animals shouldn't be done.
and there is no absolute value on life either, i'm sure the dog thinks it's life is worth more then yours and would run for it's life if it could, leaving you with your own eyes burning. to condone such frivilous animal testing makes you a callous fucker.
I'm not naive about it, i do understand many treatments that keep people alive to do were born out of some pretty horrific animal testing. But what i do think is that we SHOULD feel bad about it, and it should motovate us to find alternatives that get the same result with less cruelty. too often in labs this is glossed over and researchers don't stop to think about it.
I will qualify this with the fact i don't think all animals are equal. an ant for example doesn't feel the same pain as an animal with a more complex nervous system.
And you see here's the thing about animal cruelty. it invariably leads to cruelty to humans, because such a low value is placed on life and it desensitises people to suffering. you'll find a direct correlation between people that are cruel to animals and how they treat other people.
it's no common now, but in the past they tested chemicals on animals that would burn their skin or give them ulcers. i put it to you that no animal should suffer a single day so that some teenage emo can wear a new eye liner.
I'm all for testing as long as it doesn't cause apprechiable suffering for the animal. limited tempary discomformt i can live with, but making another living thing which feels pain live or die in agony is as evil an act as i can imagine.
especially when it's for something shallow like cosmetic testing.
figures they would come up with such a horribly flawed plan. i remmeber the chief geo at a place i worked trying to explain to me how geologists weren't trained to think in uni, and how that's a good thing...
I'm conflicted by this one. i JUST got handed a letter stating i was getting a raise. $5,000. pretty good in this economy you might say, but at the same time i've pumped out the work of 2 positions (one was retrenched) as well as put in a fair bit of my own time. by managements own admission, i have saved the company over $500,000 last year alone. that's tangible savings not imaged ones.
so while my input has been recognosied, i was only 2% more then what was handed out to everyone else (even the lowest performers), and a mere 1% of the savings i brough them through my extra skills i brought to the table when the company was in dire straights.
I'm happy i got something, but it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth when i think of how hard i had to work to get that 2% extra.
I work for a billion dollar company, so yes i know exactly what it's like. i'll use google as an example, i'd say they are pretty responsive and they also use open source. so is IBM if you've ever had them as a supplier.
your assertion about individuals losing responsibility is true, but it only applies 100% to government, since big business will tank if they lose enough credability with their customers, were public servants are basicly impossible to fire and government can't go out of business.
Yes the wheels DO turn a little slower in larger companies, but it's better then the wheels not turning at all as happens when the OSS project your business was relying on goes dark because the main dev lost interest.
if you look behind the scenes corp. money is what is driving all the major projects, its not a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
imagine if macdonalds build a sexbot, they would be trillionares!!
this guy's an idiot. he admits to not knowing the subject matter well but still wants to chastise programmers for not being experts?!! that's his first epic fail, his 2nd is that programmers aren't meant to be experts in every area, only at programming. people that have double degree's and years of experience in a field are the only ones who should be, and they will be in lead roles.p his 3rd fail is how he makes his arguement, it reminds me of a child throwing itself on it's back and kicking it's legs till it gets it's own way.
wtf, how is the BSD license "worse"?
monty's just an idiot, he sold mysql and now whinges about it.
i think it's a good thing though, if it wasn't for lax security there wouldn't be so many theifing pricks in the world. no we just need to convince credit companies to use the same level of security that a bloody computer game uses and we might all be better off.
as their exposure to the west increases this will change i'm sure, but for now most of the innovatino is still going to come from the USA and other western countries.
the fact that you know what adsense is and that you want to advertise places you a million miles ahed of your average phone consumer. google has never had to stand up to the rigors of low intelligence PAYING customers before.
if you let them in the door then you will be talking with auditors, who generally are NOT on the same level of insurance investigators. i've dealt with then a few times (not software auditors though) they are only ever concerned with covering their own arses so they feel safe signing off on the audits completion.
that doesn't work because they will respond with "ok we will prove it, our auditors will be there monday" and when you refuse you just look guilty. it's better to just look stupid and waste 100's of hours of their time till they give up.
personally i can't see how the manager of any company worth his salt couldn't stone wall this. first you would play dumb - really dumb -. then once they had spelt out a few times what they wanted you'd put up a few objections that don't make any sense. follow this up with a few feature questions to taking them off down another track and they will probably be ready to drop the matter on their own for all the time you are chewing up. if you've got an rep that is really switched on and sticking to his guns, then you would go to phase 2 where you demand they explain why this benefits you the customer, ask how it makes you money. kick and scream threaten to go over to a different platform, get quotes showing it'd be worth it and send it to them. after this it'd be a miracle if they persisted. obviously if they just showed up you'd kick them out the door.
it's little wonder this is biting them in the arse.
I was just thinking this. i reckon they should change the design in mexico to a big american flag with the statue of liberty giving the finger. i know i'd buy one!
if all these people wrote code instead of rants you'd be a little closer by now.
i'm with you there. the image should NEVER be stored, only fed live to a screen where the agent gets to make a call on pulling the person aside or not. the person viewing also shouldn't be allowed to see the person being scanned, eliminating bias.
http://vetmed.illinois.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=413 if you google around you'll see the links are very clear, especially with young children. once they become comfortable abusing animals, when they grow up abusing people become 2nd nature to them. Obviously people performing research aren't going to suddenly become killers, but i think as a society the attitude that it's ok to hurt animals needs to be fought, since it rubs off on the next generation. you don't want people to be detached from the suffering they inflict on other living things.
and no one is condoning mis treatment of animals in agriculture either. the things most farmers do to pigs and chickens is disgusting. i always buy free range, for that reason, and also because they are tastier.
the whole point i'm trying to make is it's ok to use animals, but we should always strive to be humane about it.
plants can't feel pain, they have no nervous system buddy. like we said, it's not the killing, it's the suffering. i'm pro right to die as well btw, i don't think you should let humans suffer either.
we have a good enough grasp on chemistry that such experiements on animals shouldn't be done.
and there is no absolute value on life either, i'm sure the dog thinks it's life is worth more then yours and would run for it's life if it could, leaving you with your own eyes burning. to condone such frivilous animal testing makes you a callous fucker.
I will qualify this with the fact i don't think all animals are equal. an ant for example doesn't feel the same pain as an animal with a more complex nervous system.
And you see here's the thing about animal cruelty. it invariably leads to cruelty to humans, because such a low value is placed on life and it desensitises people to suffering. you'll find a direct correlation between people that are cruel to animals and how they treat other people.
it's no common now, but in the past they tested chemicals on animals that would burn their skin or give them ulcers. i put it to you that no animal should suffer a single day so that some teenage emo can wear a new eye liner.
what about it, do you need one?
especially when it's for something shallow like cosmetic testing.
figures they would come up with such a horribly flawed plan. i remmeber the chief geo at a place i worked trying to explain to me how geologists weren't trained to think in uni, and how that's a good thing...
so while my input has been recognosied, i was only 2% more then what was handed out to everyone else (even the lowest performers), and a mere 1% of the savings i brough them through my extra skills i brought to the table when the company was in dire straights.
I'm happy i got something, but it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth when i think of how hard i had to work to get that 2% extra.
your assertion about individuals losing responsibility is true, but it only applies 100% to government, since big business will tank if they lose enough credability with their customers, were public servants are basicly impossible to fire and government can't go out of business.
Yes the wheels DO turn a little slower in larger companies, but it's better then the wheels not turning at all as happens when the OSS project your business was relying on goes dark because the main dev lost interest.
if you look behind the scenes corp. money is what is driving all the major projects, its not a bad thing.