> Which is more likely to be in business in five years, Home Depot, or Joe's Contractor Shack?
Actually, the answer "Joe's Contractor Shack" isn't as dumb as it sounds. A few years back, before there was a Home Depot in my home city, it was DIY Home Warehouse that was going to put the "Joe's" out of business...right up until they failed and were bought out by Home Depot.
When I was growing up, you could count on three things: death, taxes, and AT&T will -always- be your phone company. And then they weren't.
> Microsoft has a FAR higher probability of being around in five years than, > say, Red Hat, which is the strongest player.
Higher, no argument. Far higher, I might argue. Not because MS is likely to disappear, but because the same factors that make it unlikley MS will disappear work to make Red Hat stable. Not as strongly, but in the same way.
MS is solid; but it's also vulnerable in ways Red Hat isn't, just like AT&T was vulnerable in ways MCI and Sprint weren't; apples and oranges.
Just so you know, the cost of a cubicle is -not- $0. I've heard figures quoted around $3000 at the low end for cubicle space. So your company is not offering you a $10,000 perk there to exchange for more cash. It probably works out to more like $5000, and the company make take a hit on your productivity that makes it more valuable to them than saving the cash.
Standardizing on anything (language, IDE, RCS, anything) should be done for a clear business purpose. The first question to ask is "what business purpose are we trying to accomplish?"
> The pro-standardization guys say that a single language (like Java) will save everyone time.
What is the current cost of lost time to your business? How much time will you save by going to a single language, and what will the dollar return be? If you can't answer these questions, then standardization -for the purpose- of saving time is premature.
> The anti-standardization guys are advocating a mixed environment (of > languages like Python, Ruby, and C#), and argue that the whole discussion is > as silly as a manufacturing firm standardizing on screwdrivers for all their screw/nail/glue fastening needs.
How many types of needs has your company had, historically? Do you write 2 or 3 different types of applications, or 20 or 30? What procedures have been considered for allowing a new language when needed? Who reviews the proposal? How long will it take?
It's useful to choose standard tools, standard procedures. It's also a common cause of failure when the company can no longer react quickly.
I have never know a successful firm that standardized on -one- language. I've known several that standardized on a few, for different purposes. I can't honestly say that, on average, they were more successful than the many successful firms I've know that never standardized on programming languages at all. As far as I can tell, standardizing on a few languages had no impact at all on the business.
One final thought; in my experience -language- is one element, and not the most important element, of application development. If your company haas effective development standards that deal with most other aspects of software development, feel free to look at language. If you haven't, -don't- start with standardizing the language. Start with standardizing the higher level elements of the development process.
> And here, we have [as consumers] a big problem. You see, you have NEVER > purchased digital content, you have only been *licensed* to do certain > things with it, the problem is that, the companies are getting greedy and > are trying to reduce the actions you can do with their *license*.
Agreed. And even if we are only purchasing a license, the license terms are never clearly specified.
> An example of this subtle difference would be, when you *buy* a program, > when you really buy it, the programmer will provide you the program and > sometimes the source code.
Except, of course, where the vendors are trying to sell you a "license" to use the program for a time.
> The same thing happens with music, although you may be buying a CD, what > you are really doing is buying a license that allows you to do certain > things with the intelectual property. Read what your booklet say, something > like "the license does not give permission for rental or public > broadcasting".
No argument. The nasty part is they are trying to restrict it to a license to play the content on a specific type of hardware. Oh, and if we lean on the hardware vendors to switch to something new in five years, we want to remove your right to play it on newer hardware.
IMHO, one of the big problems is that the big content providers want to write the laws, create the technology, and if it makes it impossible for the consumer to get a fair shake, so what?
One of my biggest gripes is that they want to change the business model to a rental/leasing model, without dropping the price to consumers. I'd be fine with leasing something instead of buying it (or an unrestricted license). But damn if I'm going to pay the same premiums. Knock the prices down between to 10% to 20% of the price for the unrestricted license. Quit trying to write the contract so it looks like a sale when it's really a very limited lease.
>> In order for the market to work and content to move into the digital >> age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.
Perhaps in the generic sense of "digital rights management", i.e., some combination of technological and legal mechanisms for managing the legitimate rights of those people who create, own and distribute digital content.
But that's not what "DRM" is used to mean, by many content owners. To them, "Digital Rights Management" is about forcing on consumers -one- unbelievably restrictive, poorly engineered, legally questionable mechanism for protecting -and substantially extending- their already overbroad perception of what their "rights" are under the law.
> I agree with you completely. I do not understand people that are totally > anti-Rights-management. The problem is the way companies are using the DRM > tool as a lot of them see it as a way to squeeze more profit from their > customers.
Very true. But many of the Anti-Rights-Management folk have leftover -legitimate- suspicions of anyone defending rights management. Like a man who's been beaten up by crooked cops once, he will -always- be suspicious of cops. The fact that they are good cops doesn't change this.
Until the good cops start cracking down on the bad cops, we can't even -begin- to deal with the suspicions.
> But you have to see DRM with a broader view, it is about the management > of rights in information, as the world continues to depend more on > digital information there is an inherent *need* in controlling who > can and who can not access that information.
That's not completely on target, I feel. There is a need to enforce the legitimate ownership rights to information. This is not precisely the same as "controlling who can and can not access that information." Rights management law and technology needs to take into account the right of consumers to have permanent unencumbered (not unrestricted) use of digital content they have purchased.
That means when technology changes, I need to have recognized my absolute -right- to transfer the content to another form. That means when the company that produced the content folds, I need to have recognized my absolute right to engineer my own solutions for transferring and utilizing this content (and have third-parties engineer the same). I need to have recognized my absolute right to -refuse- to accept future contractual licensing changes on content I have already purchased. I need to have recognized my absolute right to be informed prior to purchasing, the licensing terms of the content, in simple clear terms.
And content providers and software and hardware manufacturers are fighting like mad to avoid respecting any of these rights.
> It is not only about music and movies. It is about documents and all > other kind of digitally representable data.
> The people that rant about the right management technology usually has > no idea how to control information,
Well, to be fair, most people who -support- DRM technology usually have no idea how to control information, either.
> I am totally against the way CORPOPRATIONS are using DRM technology > (I was the first to compile a list of Sony Rootkit CD's when it > started) but seriously, the technology is not bad, it is corporations > abusing it to get more power.
Unfortunately, they will continue to abuse it until (A) the rights of consumers and the responsibilities of corporations are clearly enumerated in the law, and (B) DRM technology is mature enough to rely on. We aren't even close to that point. It requires methods for accurately and independently auditing the software and hardware end-to-end. That ain't happening; not in DRM, not in voting, automotive, medical, or any other hardware and software where we have a need for verification and reliability.
First, let me state that I have never been in a situation as bad as you describe. But I have dealt with some similar types of problems. Some thoughts.
> I am...a technology worker...outside of the IT department in my company
This might be a part of the problem. IT personnel not under IT's department heads may not be considered as knowledgeable as the staff in the IT department proper.
> By far, the biggest challenge I face is getting anything done due to the > bureaucracy that exists, within IT.
Usually, IT bureaucracy exists because (A) IT was slapdash, problems occurred, and management mandated heavier process, or (B) IT was pressured to be slapdash, problems occurred, and IT fought for and got heavier process.
The result is the same. In case A, your requests are being deflected out of self-defense on the part of IT staff. In case B, you are viewed as an outsider who doesn't understand why this is necessary. Making the connections with the people who can solve this depends on which case this is.
> There are certain tasks (i.e. anything that happens in the data centers) > that I don't have the access to do.
If you aren't IT, then you shouldn't have access to most anything in the data centers.
> Even a simple task, like installing more memory in a non-production server, > can take nine months and massive mountains of paperwork (no exaggeration), > thus costing many times more than it should.
The problem is getting the non-production servers treated differently.
First, what do -you- consider a -non-production- server? If IT has to fix problems with it, if it's budgeted as IT equipment, If the IT staff gets called down at 3am to restart it, it's production. If any of this is true solely and only because it's in the data center, then you need a non-production area for this equipment.
> The lack of agility is maddening, because I know we are missing significant > business opportunities. My management is extremely supportive and despite > our excellent track record of success in creating robust/secure > applications--our work has passed audit numerous times with flying > colors--we get no support from IT.
This might be because you are competition. On the other hand, it might be that you are placing a burden on the IT staff that you don't realize. Creating the applications is only part of it. Deploying, maintaining, integrating, troubleshooting, etc. are part of the cost and trouble. Do you handle this or pay for this, or is it IT's problem?
> Even senior management can't break through the barrier.
How senior? Seriously, I don't know of any company where -no- senior staff can change the policies of IT. Now it might be board-level or similar, but -senior- management almost always can change things. How high are these senior managers? Division Managers? VP?
> I am very interested in hearing the experiences Slashdot readers have had in > similar situations." How do you get your technology work done, when your IT > department is more hindrance than help?
I have dealt with obstructionist IT staff. At one firm, developers outside IT had to go to training (offered once every six months) for 2 weeks before being allowed to use the (overly maintenance heavy) revision control system. I did an end run and installed CVS locally, but I mentioned this as a problem to my bosses, and said it really should be installed on a server or everyone on the main RCS. But until IT made getting on the main RCS reasonable, we were stuck.
I've dealt with firms where getting a non-production server set up was extremely difficult. But with persistence and a commitment to always be respectful of the IT staff and offer solutions to problems, it can be changed.
The one exception would be where someone has set up IT as his own little power base. Screw with him and he'll bury you.
> For legal reasons one must still be able to present data in a form > counsel can use in a trusted and secure method.
I can understand that for certain legal -purposes- this may be necessary. Is is strictly necessitated by law, however? Federal or state?
For security reasons, many firms don't store the credit card numbers after processing the transaction (obviously, doesn't apply to any regularly repeated transactions/subscriptions).
Is this solely required for repeating transactions?
I'm sorry, but it seems to me as if your logic is circular.
> The point being that without that continuity, without the ability to remember > from one moment to the next - without that continuing thread, the subjective > experience of the person lacking this function is of nothingness.
How is this lack of experience substantially different from the lack of understanding or continuity perceived by someone in a coma? They still exist, even though they aren't consciously aware.
> You could argue that my responses to people (as non-sensical as they were) > were just programmed responses.
You could certainly argue that they were reflexive, just as a coma patient squeezing the hand of someone in response to stimulus is essentially reflexive.
> Bottom line is, whether or not you can argue that a person exists or not is > kind of beside the point - if they are unable to experience their own > existence, then to them they don't exist
Here's where the logic seems to turn in a circle. "My life here is all there is, my awareness of this physical reality is all there is, If I lose this I cease to exist." I am a meat puppet, therefore I am a meat puppet.
> and if this mechanism is necessary for an individual to be able to > experience their own existence, then after death, when this mechanism surely > ceases functioning just as it would with injury, the experience of the dead > person would be the same - nothingness. From my perspective at the time (or > rather complete lack of one), I did not exist - and when it comes to being > alive or being dead, the perspective of the person concerned is the only one > that matters.
Seems like a tight circle.
"I am my consciousness, and nothing more. Since I believe that when I die, my consciousness ceases abruptly rather than continuing elsewhere, then since my conscious awareness ceased though my body continued, I was dead. Since I didn't go to heaven or hell, the soul isn't immortal."
If, however, you don't start with the assumption that you am nothing more than your conscious awareness, then your awareness ceasing or being drastically reduced is not essential to the question of your actual life and death.
> From my perspective at the time (or rather complete lack of one), I did > not exist - and when it comes to being alive or being dead, the > perspective of the person concerned is the only one that matters.
Assuming there is no God, and the soul is not real and immortal.
If the soul is real, then when it comes to being alive or dead, there is an -actual- (albeit intangible) criteria for being alive or being dead. If there is a God, then there is another perspective than that of the person himself. If God exists, his perspective on whether you are alive or dead seems rather important.
Before replying, please note that I am not saying I just proved God exists and the soul is immortal. I'm just saying your logic seems flawed to me. It doesn't prove anything; it just reinforces an emotional perception you had going into this.
Thanks for your comments. For reference, I am a practicing Catholic.
I commented in an earlier thread on ID vs evolution in the US that one problem is that science (and evolution in particular) is taught in most US public schools -as if- it is wizardry.
It's presented in sterile format, no questioning of the reasoning behind it is permitted, perceived critics are ridiculed and ostracized. Teachers teach the students to give more weight to the academic credentials of the scientist than the accuracy of his methods, and concepts such as the scientific method and explanations of why we prefer the simpler of two solutions (Occam's razor) are glossed over or ignored in favor of discussions of the roots of chemistry in alchemy and the roots of astronomy in astrology.
All students except those majoring in the physical sciences are trained to feel that science is a secret society and that a lot of it is silly, speculative crap that has no real connection to how things work.
Has Britain has fallen into the same trap of treating science as wizardry in the majority of schools?
> Considering it's coming out of somewhere like UCLA, you can be fairly certain > it's the latter.
Except for the fact that this is a news piece, not a direct report from the scientists. You never know what the scientists actually said after the reporters get through with it.
> "...researchers at UCLA say they have developed a system to monitor suspicious > online communication that discards communications from law-abiding citizens > before they ever reach the intelligence community."
"Law-abiding": which laws might that be? The laws intended to prevent disruption of society, like the ones used to jail many civil-rights activists in the 50s and 60s? The laws that declared a black man couldn't marry a white woman? Or the ones that declared a woman can't own real property?
Some of the very -best- people are by definition lawbreakers.
> From the article: "The truly revolutionary facet of the technology is > that it is a new and powerful example of a piece of code that has been > mathematically proven to be impossible to reverse-engineer.
That's a very broad statement. I haven't read the proof, so I can't say they're wrong. I will just point out that there are things "proven mathematically" in consumer statistics everyday that just aren't so. There is a difference between "mathematically proven" as used in colloquial speech and "a mathematical proof."
> Sometimes you don't ever get to do what you love, but you still have to make a living.
True. But the way kids choose careers is disturbing. The vast majority use -other- people's values to decide what to do. The sad thing isn't the people who "have to make a living" doing something they don't love. It's the people who never -think- about what they want to be when the grow up until after their third career change and their third divorce.
> I think you're fortunate if you find something you love to do, but I don't > think it's right to tell kids that it's what should happen either.
It's not about "what should happen"; no one of us is in control of that. It's about "what you should strive for". At least that's my opinion.
> That would just be a big disappointment if it didn't turn out that way.
In contrast to the big disappointment of being 5 years from retirement and realizing you've never thought about what you want out of life, beyond "money"?
I vote for love over money, every time. You might -have- to compromise, but I think it's a damn shame to go into the fight with the intention of losing in the first round.
> I always find it strange when people accuse academia of unfair bias. > When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean > towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you?
Respectfully, the days when academia represented the best and the brightest are long gone (if in fact, academia ever did). Standards have dropped disturbingly, even in the most prestigious universities. The top may still be very high, but the bottom is lower than ever, and the midpoint is falling fast.
> You can argue that academics are too detached from reality, but I think > that's wishful thinking from bitter people. All the people I know in > academia are well-informed, widely-read, and thoughtful voters.
Congratulations. I -also- know many people in academia who are all the above. I have regretfully met -many- who are so wrapped up in proving that those who differ from their viewpoints are evil, stupid, and genetically defective that they feel no qualms about falsifying records, perjuring themselves and violating confidentiality rules to attack anyone they perceive as enemies.
That's why the "best and the brightest" line has always disturbed me. There are people on all points of the political graph who firmly believe that "wrong isn't wrong when it's done by nice people like me." Liberals, conservatives, atheists, christians, republicans, democrats, and everything between have fallen victim to thinking they are "the superior breed".
> A lot of universities also have many international scholars, which > contributes to a wider perspective on politics.
Sometimes. Unfortunately, they often select these international scholars from a limited pool of candidates, representing the same views as the university faculty. Not always, by any stretch. Just more often than I like to see.
> Now, if a professor were to mark down a student for expressing a different > view (assuming they were able to defend their reasoning), that would be > beyond the pale.
It happens fairly often; sometimes more than marking them down. I've known cases where people were prohibited from getting into programs and denied degrees by vindictive professors.
> But the things this group is talking about hardly rises to that level.
Agreed. I think this group has gone too far over the line.
I admit, I would like to see more professor's lectures brought out into the open. But there are problems with just recording the lectures haphazardly. We all make misstatements, and none of us could defend everything we say all the time. Particularly in the current state of heightened paranoia.
> There's nothing wrong with talking about your opinions in a university > class where everyone is assumed to be a rational adult.
I think that's a fair view. Unfortunately, we seem to have fewer and fewer rational adults in society as a whole.
Agreed. At -most-, note that you haven't tested it with XXXX version ##, note the current version of XXXX if you support it, provide a link to the current version if they want to upgrade and allow the user to continue at their discretion.
> you're still entirely at the mercy of Apple. If they go out of business, > or get bought out, or become more evil/greedy, then they can impose > new restrictions on the use of their products.
Or just get pinched on income.
Using restrictive licensing/evil marketing in general doesn't require evil and greed. Carelessness will do it. Market pressure can do it.
The consumer rights in most of these kinds of licenses are soap bubble rights. Their very fragile in terms of the strength of the guarantee. The companies who offer them are only offering you -their best efforts-. With most companies, this is not of any real value.
> And while iTunes DRM does stop average Joe's from pirating songs, > there's software out there to crack it, and it works.
Which brings up pressure from the RIAA. If they add enough pressure on Apple, or on the legislators, all bets are off.
A little additional clarification. The referenced article basically says that players own their names and likenesses, for marketing purposes. The baseball owners are trying to claim that the statistics are part of the "identity" of the player, which would allow them to prohibit commercial use under same trademark laws that prohibit using players pictures and names on products.
It's a sneaky proposition, and hopefully the judge will toss it out.
> In order to the first, you must do the second. There is no other way to > do this. If the Windows APIs can see the data, then applications built > on the APIs can see the data.
I think we're talking about two different things here. It isn't necessary to hook the Windows APIs to have Symantec's antivirus and antispyware utilities ignore that folder. It -is- necessary in order for -all- antivirus and antispyware utilities to do so, regardless if who created the utility.
Expanding on that point, hooking FindFirstFile and FindNextFile is not sufficient to block low-level utilities. There are other ways for low-level programs to enumerate folders. High-level applications won't use these methods. It's rather trivial for a malware program or low-level disk utility to do so.
> I drove an '89 Celebrity with no ABS or anything other than power > steering up until a year ago. You just need to know how to drive > the car you're in, not some hypothetical automobile from 20 years ago
The problem is that many drivers now lack fundamental skills, which causes more accidents even in the newer cars. People come to overdepend on things like anti-lock brakes and steering overcontrol systems, and when they need to operate their vehicle in marginal conditions like snow and heavy rains, they can't control them.
There have been a lot of interesting studies. A lot of licensed drivers now simply don't know how to drive.
One possibility, of course, is enhancing the driver tests to compensate. Rather than testing driving on the road and parallel parking skills (or the "maneuverability test", as it's called in my home state), we could test drivers for other fundamental skills. This might require simulators, and periodic re-testing, as well as changing in driver education.
> Lets get one thing clear. > This is not the Sony rootkit. It's just a directory that's not scanned > by antivirus/antispyware.
Let's be completely clear. It appears to be more than "a directory that's not scanned by antivirus/antispyware"
It's a directory that is cloaked from the administrator. It's not merely bypassed by the antivirus and antispyware utilities, it is hidden from anything that uses the Windows FindFirst/FindNext APIs to view and scan files and folders.
It -potentially- opens a bigger security hole than merely software that hides from antivirus. It can hide from other tools as well. But is is different from the Sony Rootkit; it doesn't open up ridiculous holes. It seems most likely that this was a case of reusing code without understanding the security implications.
> And, now that it's potential vulnerability has been exposed, Symantec > is releasing a new version without the protected recycle bin. > In other words, too bad they had to have their wrists slapped to fix > it, but there was no malicious attempt.
And, equally importantly, they didn't need to be dragged kicking and screaming, with the threat of lawsuits, into remediating the problem. That makes it a much smaller story.
> such changes don't happen overnight just because a demand increases. > When we're talking about properly educating people (and by properly, I mean > both intensive CS background in theory and practice, and then practical > coding in real world environments in quantity to become a good coder as > well), it will take five or more years for a demand spike to produce a supply > rise.
Possibly longer. After training and experience, there is also "shake-out", where those who just don't have the stuff to be developers end up in areas where they can make a contribution.
> The projects I am involved with today won't wait five years for > programmers. This is business fact; if they aren't started now, and > completed in an economical timeframe, then companies will go out of > business and not be around to hire those better programmers in 5 years.
Which illustrates what the management of many firms refuses to accept; that there are two problems, with two solutions. One: fill the gaps now to be competitive, and two: develop the talent for the future, in order to remain competitive.
It's not just IT; the majority of firms in the US stopped thinking past the next couple of years quite a while ago.
> And one thing I don't want to see is formal programming CS programs which > produce CS professors exclusively... though some of my CS academic > aquaintences dislike me saying so, from what I see, few of their graduates > go into coding in industry. That's a pretty unfortunate thing for the > world. To be ultimately useful, these skills need to become things which > take people out of college, into industry, and successfully into > challenging industry projects.
Absolutely. I've seen a number of situations where an academic writer has decried the failure of industry to implement a solution academics consider solved.
Unfortunately, the solution is "on display in a cellar, where the lights (and the stairs) have gone, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory..."
The best academic training is only an exercise in ego stroking unless the people who receive that training get out into the world and change it.
>...they don't allow users even low-level SUDO access, to do silly things like > change file permissions or ownerships, in a tracked environment. I am an > ex-*NIX admin myself,so I understand their perspective and wish to keep > control over the environment, but as a user, I'm frustrated by having to > frequently call the help-desk just to get a file ownership changed or a > specific package installed.
You already have some replies on the file ownership issue. I suspect if you provide more details, people can give you more tips.
But why do you need packages installed? In a controlled environment, you would normally be working with the versions of various packages that are ordinarily provided, plus a core set of additional packages for development. The only exception I would see to this is if you are doing exploratory analysis of various development tools. In a situation like that, I'd suggest a smaller, separate network for this testing, on which you may have elevated permissions.
Good point. Given that you work in the finance industry, do you think there is a way the question can be asked or the point raised, in a way that would not be off-putting?
Basically, this question serves 2 purposes:
- find out how good/bad/high-maintenance the code base you'll be supporting is - demonstrate to the interviewer an interest in and an awareness of the importance of code quality
There would be ways to find out something about the first concern even without seeing the code. If a techie is in the interview with me (happens often, these days), I like to ask specific questions about the code to determine what it's like even without looking at it.
Up until 6 years ago, a few computers were scattered around, but
processes and business was still being done the old-fashioned
way (with paper). When the IS department was started, it was
started by a hobbyist (he was named IS Manager before I showed
up), who knew nothing about management or any of the major
issues that befall a traditional IS dept.
With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations (some are
floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my title
is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority)
on my own.
What is the best way for new IS managers to convince their
superiors of the need for widespread change?
-------------
Managers coming from a "PC-free" environment will have enormous difficulty in understanding the objective requirements of managing the number of systems you're referring to.
But they aren't idiots, normally. They can understand growth and change; they can follow basic math and unserstand staffing.
Generate some report aids: [single-digit number of PCs in 1999] versus 110 PCs in 2005. Compare the normal staffing of other firms. For that number of users, a staff of 3 is quite reasonable; in many firms, the staff would be more like 6-8.
Get an actual breakdown of the time spent on various tasks; show additional tasks that -aren't- getting done, as well as estimates for the time necessary to do them. Include the planning tasks you want to work on.
--------------
I have 3 things that management and I currently don't see eye to
eye on:
--------------
Bluntly, management is in charge. If they view the functions of IS differently than you do, guess what? You're wrong. If you have reasons for feeling that duties management has assigned to IS staff should be elsewhere, then you need to change their minds by providing the (non-techie business-oriented) evidence.
Bluntly, I don't agree with you on 2 of three things you mentioned either. While connectivity is a core IS concern, I'd laugh in your face if you tried to get me to believe it's the only concern. And, bluntly, I'd adamantly insist that a primary function of IS is to work with other divisions, assisting and advising on planning and procurement.
If you need additional staff to handle those duties, it wouldn't surprise me. Particularly if they want to add application development and procurement. That's one reason many firms with similar numbers of users have 6-8 people rather than 3.
Be prepared to lose on moving these tasks outside of IS. I am a techie, and if I was your boss, I'd insist they -are- your responsibility, and replace you if you failed to comply. But I'd also give you more staff, so you could handle it.
If I were you, I'd also be prepared to lose. I've seen similar situations where people got ground up. The engineers in charge were absolutely adamant that there was no need for additional staff until -after- they burned through 5 complete changes of IT staff and management in one year.
A lot of engineers don't like to admit that computers require the same level of skill as [insert engineer's field here]. Because of this, they often insist on keeping staff far too low and hiring underqualified people long after someone more unbiased would admit there might be a problem.
> It is illegal for them to gather above certain numbers without permits (as with > all organizations). It is illegal for them to block sidewalks (as with all > other organizations)...You apparently agree... yet don't like the particular > word I use to express my thought
Fair enough. The way I read your post seemed to indicate that religious expression is limited in ways in -addition- to the normal limitations on other speech. As clarified, yes, I'd say we're in agreement.
> If you take my words in context (regarding the religious connotations of the > 10 Commandments), 100% of them were removed. The only one that stayed > demonstrated significant non-religious meaning.
No argument. But I'd still point out that "religious connotation" isn't the acid test on posting the ten commandments. It's more than that. In a purely religious connotation, it has still been permitted, as long as it's part of an display of religious symbols/information which is open to all religions.
>> Public prayer, and religious assembly is expressly protected, -even- in public schools.
> No, it is not. A coach can't lead a team prayer in a public school.
True. But the quarterback -can-. Public prayer is expressly protected. Only administration/faculty led prayer is prohibited. As long as it is student led and spontaneous, it's just about always permitted. It -may- be permitted if it is student led but not spontaneous, but that's a more complicated question.
> That doesn't seem to me that it fits the definition of "expressly protected." > What is protected is what is always protected, the right to free speech...
Such as the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, or make libelous statements? A right can be expressly protected while still having limits.
> Though, the ACLU has, on more than one occassion, fought for the right of > students to worship as they see fit.
And teachers and faculty; just not to lead the students in worship.
I think we're mostly in complete agreement, as you say. I think we are viewing matters from slightly different angles, and we definitely express ourselves differently. Thanks for your comments.
> I think that there are different definitions in use.
Yes. The ones you are using are not precisely representative of the law in the US, however.
> I have a freedom from having religion forced upon me.
Yes.
> I do not have the "freedom" of forcing all those around me from expressing their religion.
Yes.
> I have the freedom of not having the state force it upon me.
Yes.
> They can't make me pay for and walk past the 10 Commandments in the courthouse.
Actually, they can. This is an area where a lot of people are unaware of the current rulings by the courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public facility, including a courthouse, is often permissible.
This is partly due to the fact that many of the Ten Commandments factor into the historical basis for the law, and partly because religious expression isn't prohibited, only endorsement. If the context indicates many religious and non-religious views can be expressed in that area, it can be permissible. Context is critical.
If it's paid for privately, there is even more leeway.
> But I can't force you, a private citizen, from expressing your religion, > whether on your private property or unobtrusively on public property.
Yes and no. You actually -can't- require that religious expression be unobtrusive in public places. Obtrusive, in your face, loud, boisterous, impossible to ignore religious expression is not only permissible in public places, it can only be prohibited or restricted in very narrow ways.
One factor is that it cannot be restricted more than non-religious expression. If I can have a "Promote Recycling" rally that uses bullhorns, chanting, direct contact with passers-by, then I can do all the same things for a religious event in the same public venue. Religious speech is almost -never- more restricted than other speech.
Public prayer, and religious assembly is expressly protected, -even- in public schools. There have been some cases about that; students leading public services against abortion and the like on school grounds. The ruling is always that it can't be prohibited, only controlled to the minimum level needed to avoid distrupting learning.
Slashdot Mirror
> Which is more likely to be in business in five years, Home Depot, or Joe's Contractor Shack?
Actually, the answer "Joe's Contractor Shack" isn't as dumb as it sounds. A few years back, before there was a Home Depot in my home city, it was DIY Home Warehouse that was going to put the "Joe's" out of business...right up until they failed and were bought out by Home Depot.
When I was growing up, you could count on three things: death, taxes, and AT&T will -always- be your phone company. And then they weren't.
> Microsoft has a FAR higher probability of being around in five years than,
> say, Red Hat, which is the strongest player.
Higher, no argument. Far higher, I might argue. Not because MS is likely to disappear, but because the same factors that make it unlikley MS will disappear work to make Red Hat stable. Not as strongly, but in the same way.
MS is solid; but it's also vulnerable in ways Red Hat isn't, just like AT&T was vulnerable in ways MCI and Sprint weren't; apples and oranges.
Just so you know, the cost of a cubicle is -not- $0. I've heard figures quoted around $3000 at the low end for cubicle space. So your company is not offering you a $10,000 perk there to exchange for more cash. It probably works out to more like $5000, and the company make take a hit on your productivity that makes it more valuable to them than saving the cash.
Standardizing on anything (language, IDE, RCS, anything) should be done for a clear business purpose. The first question to ask is "what business purpose are we trying to accomplish?"
> The pro-standardization guys say that a single language (like Java) will save everyone time.
What is the current cost of lost time to your business? How much time will you save by going to a single language, and what will the dollar return be? If you can't answer these questions, then standardization -for the purpose- of saving time is premature.
> The anti-standardization guys are advocating a mixed environment (of
> languages like Python, Ruby, and C#), and argue that the whole discussion is
> as silly as a manufacturing firm standardizing on screwdrivers for all their screw/nail/glue fastening needs.
How many types of needs has your company had, historically? Do you write 2 or 3 different types of applications, or 20 or 30? What procedures have been considered for allowing a new language when needed? Who reviews the proposal? How long will it take?
It's useful to choose standard tools, standard procedures. It's also a common cause of failure when the company can no longer react quickly.
I have never know a successful firm that standardized on -one- language. I've known several that standardized on a few, for different purposes. I can't honestly say that, on average, they were more successful than the many successful firms I've know that never standardized on programming languages at all. As far as I can tell, standardizing on a few languages had no impact at all on the business.
One final thought; in my experience -language- is one element, and not the most important element, of application development. If your company haas effective development standards that deal with most other aspects of software development, feel free to look at language. If you haven't, -don't- start with standardizing the language. Start with standardizing the higher level elements of the development process.
> And here, we have [as consumers] a big problem. You see, you have NEVER
> purchased digital content, you have only been *licensed* to do certain
> things with it, the problem is that, the companies are getting greedy and
> are trying to reduce the actions you can do with their *license*.
Agreed. And even if we are only purchasing a license, the license terms are never clearly specified.
> An example of this subtle difference would be, when you *buy* a program,
> when you really buy it, the programmer will provide you the program and
> sometimes the source code.
Except, of course, where the vendors are trying to sell you a "license" to use the program for a time.
> The same thing happens with music, although you may be buying a CD, what
> you are really doing is buying a license that allows you to do certain
> things with the intelectual property. Read what your booklet say, something
> like "the license does not give permission for rental or public
> broadcasting".
No argument. The nasty part is they are trying to restrict it to a license to play the content on a specific type of hardware. Oh, and if we lean on the hardware vendors to switch to something new in five years, we want to remove your right to play it on newer hardware.
IMHO, one of the big problems is that the big content providers want to write the laws, create the technology, and if it makes it impossible for the consumer to get a fair shake, so what?
One of my biggest gripes is that they want to change the business model to a rental/leasing model, without dropping the price to consumers. I'd be fine with leasing something instead of buying it (or an unrestricted license). But damn if I'm going to pay the same premiums. Knock the prices down between to 10% to 20% of the price for the unrestricted license. Quit trying to write the contract so it looks like a sale when it's really a very limited lease.
Thanks for your comments.
>> In order for the market to work and content to move into the digital
>> age and away from physical media, there has to be DRM.
Perhaps in the generic sense of "digital rights management", i.e., some combination of technological and legal mechanisms for managing the legitimate rights of those people who create, own and distribute digital content.
But that's not what "DRM" is used to mean, by many content owners. To them, "Digital Rights Management" is about forcing on consumers -one- unbelievably restrictive, poorly engineered, legally questionable mechanism for protecting -and substantially extending- their already overbroad perception of what their "rights" are under the law.
> I agree with you completely. I do not understand people that are totally
> anti-Rights-management. The problem is the way companies are using the DRM
> tool as a lot of them see it as a way to squeeze more profit from their
> customers.
Very true. But many of the Anti-Rights-Management folk have leftover -legitimate- suspicions of anyone defending rights management. Like a man who's been beaten up by crooked cops once, he will -always- be suspicious of cops. The fact that they are good cops doesn't change this.
Until the good cops start cracking down on the bad cops, we can't even -begin- to deal with the suspicions.
> But you have to see DRM with a broader view, it is about the management
> of rights in information, as the world continues to depend more on
> digital information there is an inherent *need* in controlling who
> can and who can not access that information.
That's not completely on target, I feel. There is a need to enforce the legitimate ownership rights to information. This is not precisely the same as "controlling who can and can not access that information." Rights management law and technology needs to take into account the right of consumers to have permanent unencumbered (not unrestricted) use of digital content they have purchased.
That means when technology changes, I need to have recognized my absolute -right- to transfer the content to another form. That means when the company that produced the content folds, I need to have recognized my absolute right to engineer my own solutions for transferring and utilizing this content (and have third-parties engineer the same). I need to have recognized my absolute right to -refuse- to accept future contractual licensing changes on content I have already purchased. I need to have recognized my absolute right to be informed prior to purchasing, the licensing terms of the content, in simple clear terms.
And content providers and software and hardware manufacturers are fighting like mad to avoid respecting any of these rights.
> It is not only about music and movies. It is about documents and all
> other kind of digitally representable data.
> The people that rant about the right management technology usually has
> no idea how to control information,
Well, to be fair, most people who -support- DRM technology usually have no idea how to control information, either.
> I am totally against the way CORPOPRATIONS are using DRM technology
> (I was the first to compile a list of Sony Rootkit CD's when it
> started) but seriously, the technology is not bad, it is corporations
> abusing it to get more power.
Unfortunately, they will continue to abuse it until (A) the rights of consumers and the responsibilities of corporations are clearly enumerated in the law, and (B) DRM technology is mature enough to rely on. We aren't even close to that point. It requires methods for accurately and independently auditing the software and hardware end-to-end. That ain't happening; not in DRM, not in voting, automotive, medical, or any other hardware and software where we have a need for verification and reliability.
First, let me state that I have never been in a situation as bad as you describe. But I have dealt with some similar types of problems. Some thoughts.
> I am...a technology worker...outside of the IT department in my company
This might be a part of the problem. IT personnel not under IT's department heads may not be considered as knowledgeable as the staff in the IT department proper.
> By far, the biggest challenge I face is getting anything done due to the
> bureaucracy that exists, within IT.
Usually, IT bureaucracy exists because (A) IT was slapdash, problems occurred, and management mandated heavier process, or (B) IT was pressured to be slapdash, problems occurred, and IT fought for and got heavier process.
The result is the same. In case A, your requests are being deflected out of self-defense on the part of IT staff. In case B, you are viewed as an outsider who doesn't understand why this is necessary. Making the connections with the people who can solve this depends on which case this is.
> There are certain tasks (i.e. anything that happens in the data centers)
> that I don't have the access to do.
If you aren't IT, then you shouldn't have access to most anything in the data centers.
> Even a simple task, like installing more memory in a non-production server,
> can take nine months and massive mountains of paperwork (no exaggeration),
> thus costing many times more than it should.
The problem is getting the non-production servers treated differently.
First, what do -you- consider a -non-production- server? If IT has to fix problems with it, if it's budgeted as IT equipment, If the IT staff gets called down at 3am to restart it, it's production. If any of this is true solely and only because it's in the data center, then you need a non-production area for this equipment.
> The lack of agility is maddening, because I know we are missing significant
> business opportunities. My management is extremely supportive and despite
> our excellent track record of success in creating robust/secure
> applications--our work has passed audit numerous times with flying
> colors--we get no support from IT.
This might be because you are competition. On the other hand, it might be that you are placing a burden on the IT staff that you don't realize. Creating the applications is only part of it. Deploying, maintaining, integrating, troubleshooting, etc. are part of the cost and trouble. Do you handle this or pay for this, or is it IT's problem?
> Even senior management can't break through the barrier.
How senior? Seriously, I don't know of any company where -no- senior staff can change the policies of IT. Now it might be board-level or similar, but -senior- management almost always can change things. How high are these senior managers? Division Managers? VP?
> I am very interested in hearing the experiences Slashdot readers have had in
> similar situations." How do you get your technology work done, when your IT
> department is more hindrance than help?
I have dealt with obstructionist IT staff. At one firm, developers outside IT had to go to training (offered once every six months) for 2 weeks before being allowed to use the (overly maintenance heavy) revision control system. I did an end run and installed CVS locally, but I mentioned this as a problem to my bosses, and said it really should be installed on a server or everyone on the main RCS. But until IT made getting on the main RCS reasonable, we were stuck.
I've dealt with firms where getting a non-production server set up was extremely difficult. But with persistence and a commitment to always be respectful of the IT staff and offer solutions to problems, it can be changed.
The one exception would be where someone has set up IT as his own little power base. Screw with him and he'll bury you.
> For legal reasons one must still be able to present data in a form
> counsel can use in a trusted and secure method.
I can understand that for certain legal -purposes- this may be necessary. Is is strictly necessitated by law, however? Federal or state?
For security reasons, many firms don't store the credit card numbers after processing the transaction (obviously, doesn't apply to any regularly repeated transactions/subscriptions).
Is this solely required for repeating transactions?
I'm sorry, but it seems to me as if your logic is circular.
> The point being that without that continuity, without the ability to remember
> from one moment to the next - without that continuing thread, the subjective
> experience of the person lacking this function is of nothingness.
How is this lack of experience substantially different from the lack of understanding or continuity perceived by someone in a coma? They still exist, even though they aren't consciously aware.
> You could argue that my responses to people (as non-sensical as they were)
> were just programmed responses.
You could certainly argue that they were reflexive, just as a coma patient squeezing the hand of someone in response to stimulus is essentially reflexive.
> Bottom line is, whether or not you can argue that a person exists or not is
> kind of beside the point - if they are unable to experience their own
> existence, then to them they don't exist
Here's where the logic seems to turn in a circle. "My life here is all there is, my awareness of this physical reality is all there is, If I lose this I cease to exist." I am a meat puppet, therefore I am a meat puppet.
> and if this mechanism is necessary for an individual to be able to
> experience their own existence, then after death, when this mechanism surely
> ceases functioning just as it would with injury, the experience of the dead
> person would be the same - nothingness. From my perspective at the time (or
> rather complete lack of one), I did not exist - and when it comes to being
> alive or being dead, the perspective of the person concerned is the only one
> that matters.
Seems like a tight circle.
"I am my consciousness, and nothing more. Since I believe that when I die, my consciousness ceases abruptly rather than continuing elsewhere, then since my conscious awareness ceased though my body continued, I was dead. Since I didn't go to heaven or hell, the soul isn't immortal."
If, however, you don't start with the assumption that you am nothing more than your conscious awareness, then your awareness ceasing or being drastically reduced is not essential to the question of your actual life and death.
> From my perspective at the time (or rather complete lack of one), I did
> not exist - and when it comes to being alive or being dead, the
> perspective of the person concerned is the only one that matters.
Assuming there is no God, and the soul is not real and immortal.
If the soul is real, then when it comes to being alive or dead, there is an -actual- (albeit intangible) criteria for being alive or being dead. If there is a God, then there is another perspective than that of the person himself. If God exists, his perspective on whether you are alive or dead seems rather important.
Before replying, please note that I am not saying I just proved God exists and the soul is immortal. I'm just saying your logic seems flawed to me. It doesn't prove anything; it just reinforces an emotional perception you had going into this.
Thanks for your comments. For reference, I am a practicing Catholic.
I commented in an earlier thread on ID vs evolution in the US that one problem is that science (and evolution in particular) is taught in most US public schools -as if- it is wizardry.
It's presented in sterile format, no questioning of the reasoning behind it is permitted, perceived critics are ridiculed and ostracized. Teachers teach the students to give more weight to the academic credentials of the scientist than the accuracy of his methods, and concepts such as the scientific method and explanations of why we prefer the simpler of two solutions (Occam's razor) are glossed over or ignored in favor of discussions of the roots of chemistry in alchemy and the roots of astronomy in astrology.
All students except those majoring in the physical sciences are trained to feel that science is a secret society and that a lot of it is silly, speculative crap that has no real connection to how things work.
Has Britain has fallen into the same trap of treating science as wizardry in the majority of schools?
> Considering it's coming out of somewhere like UCLA, you can be fairly certain
k eith.html.
> it's the latter.
Except for the fact that this is a news piece, not a direct report from the scientists. You never know what the scientists actually said after the reporters get through with it.
> In case you're interested, the related paper appears to be at
> http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rafail/PUBLIC/Ostrovsky-S
Many thanks, I'll look it over.
> "...researchers at UCLA say they have developed a system to monitor suspicious
> online communication that discards communications from law-abiding citizens
> before they ever reach the intelligence community."
"Law-abiding": which laws might that be? The laws intended to prevent disruption of society, like the ones used to jail many civil-rights activists in the 50s and 60s? The laws that declared a black man couldn't marry a white woman? Or the ones that declared a woman can't own real property?
Some of the very -best- people are by definition lawbreakers.
> From the article: "The truly revolutionary facet of the technology is
> that it is a new and powerful example of a piece of code that has been
> mathematically proven to be impossible to reverse-engineer.
That's a very broad statement. I haven't read the proof, so I can't say they're wrong. I will just point out that there are things "proven mathematically" in consumer statistics everyday that just aren't so. There is a difference between "mathematically proven" as used in colloquial speech and "a mathematical proof."
I wonder which this is?
> Sometimes you don't ever get to do what you love, but you still have to make a living.
True. But the way kids choose careers is disturbing. The vast majority use -other- people's values to decide what to do. The sad thing isn't the people who "have to make a living" doing something they don't love. It's the people who never -think- about what they want to be when the grow up until after their third career change and their third divorce.
> I think you're fortunate if you find something you love to do, but I don't
> think it's right to tell kids that it's what should happen either.
It's not about "what should happen"; no one of us is in control of that. It's about "what you should strive for". At least that's my opinion.
> That would just be a big disappointment if it didn't turn out that way.
In contrast to the big disappointment of being 5 years from retirement and realizing you've never thought about what you want out of life, beyond "money"?
I vote for love over money, every time. You might -have- to compromise, but I think it's a damn shame to go into the fight with the intention of losing in the first round.
> I always find it strange when people accuse academia of unfair bias.
> When the majority of the best and brightest in the country all lean
> towards a particular political philosophy, what should that tell you?
Respectfully, the days when academia represented the best and the brightest are long gone (if in fact, academia ever did). Standards have dropped disturbingly, even in the most prestigious universities. The top may still be very high, but the bottom is lower than ever, and the midpoint is falling fast.
> You can argue that academics are too detached from reality, but I think
> that's wishful thinking from bitter people. All the people I know in
> academia are well-informed, widely-read, and thoughtful voters.
Congratulations. I -also- know many people in academia who are all the above. I have regretfully met -many- who are so wrapped up in proving that those who differ from their viewpoints are evil, stupid, and genetically defective that they feel no qualms about falsifying records, perjuring themselves and violating confidentiality rules to attack anyone they perceive as enemies.
That's why the "best and the brightest" line has always disturbed me. There are people on all points of the political graph who firmly believe that "wrong isn't wrong when it's done by nice people like me." Liberals, conservatives, atheists, christians, republicans, democrats, and everything between have fallen victim to thinking they are "the superior breed".
> A lot of universities also have many international scholars, which
> contributes to a wider perspective on politics.
Sometimes. Unfortunately, they often select these international scholars from a limited pool of candidates, representing the same views as the university faculty. Not always, by any stretch. Just more often than I like to see.
> Now, if a professor were to mark down a student for expressing a different
> view (assuming they were able to defend their reasoning), that would be
> beyond the pale.
It happens fairly often; sometimes more than marking them down. I've known cases where people were prohibited from getting into programs and denied degrees by vindictive professors.
> But the things this group is talking about hardly rises to that level.
Agreed. I think this group has gone too far over the line.
I admit, I would like to see more professor's lectures brought out into the open. But there are problems with just recording the lectures haphazardly. We all make misstatements, and none of us could defend everything we say all the time. Particularly in the current state of heightened paranoia.
> There's nothing wrong with talking about your opinions in a university
> class where everyone is assumed to be a rational adult.
I think that's a fair view. Unfortunately, we seem to have fewer and fewer rational adults in society as a whole.
Thanks for your comments.
Agreed. At -most-, note that you haven't tested it with XXXX version ##, note the current version of XXXX if you support it, provide a link to the current version if they want to upgrade and allow the user to continue at their discretion.
> you're still entirely at the mercy of Apple. If they go out of business,
> or get bought out, or become more evil/greedy, then they can impose
> new restrictions on the use of their products.
Or just get pinched on income.
Using restrictive licensing/evil marketing in general doesn't require evil and greed. Carelessness will do it. Market pressure can do it.
The consumer rights in most of these kinds of licenses are soap bubble rights. Their very fragile in terms of the strength of the guarantee. The companies who offer them are only offering you -their best efforts-. With most companies, this is not of any real value.
> And while iTunes DRM does stop average Joe's from pirating songs,
> there's software out there to crack it, and it works.
Which brings up pressure from the RIAA. If they add enough pressure on Apple, or on the legislators, all bets are off.
A little additional clarification. The referenced article basically says that players own their names and likenesses, for marketing purposes. The baseball owners are trying to claim that the statistics are part of the "identity" of the player, which would allow them to prohibit commercial use under same trademark laws that prohibit using players pictures and names on products.
It's a sneaky proposition, and hopefully the judge will toss it out.
> In order to the first, you must do the second. There is no other way to
> do this. If the Windows APIs can see the data, then applications built
> on the APIs can see the data.
I think we're talking about two different things here. It isn't necessary to hook the Windows APIs to have Symantec's antivirus and antispyware utilities ignore that folder. It -is- necessary in order for -all- antivirus and antispyware utilities to do so, regardless if who created the utility.
Expanding on that point, hooking FindFirstFile and FindNextFile is not sufficient to block low-level utilities. There are other ways for low-level programs to enumerate folders. High-level applications won't use these methods. It's rather trivial for a malware program or low-level disk utility to do so.
> I drove an '89 Celebrity with no ABS or anything other than power
> steering up until a year ago. You just need to know how to drive
> the car you're in, not some hypothetical automobile from 20 years ago
The problem is that many drivers now lack fundamental skills, which causes more accidents even in the newer cars. People come to overdepend on things like anti-lock brakes and steering overcontrol systems, and when they need to operate their vehicle in marginal conditions like snow and heavy rains, they can't control them.
There have been a lot of interesting studies. A lot of licensed drivers now simply don't know how to drive.
One possibility, of course, is enhancing the driver tests to compensate. Rather than testing driving on the road and parallel parking skills (or the "maneuverability test", as it's called in my home state), we could test drivers for other fundamental skills. This might require simulators, and periodic re-testing, as well as changing in driver education.
> Lets get one thing clear.
> This is not the Sony rootkit. It's just a directory that's not scanned
> by antivirus/antispyware.
Let's be completely clear. It appears to be more than "a directory that's not scanned by antivirus/antispyware"
It's a directory that is cloaked from the administrator. It's not merely bypassed by the antivirus and antispyware utilities, it is hidden from anything that uses the Windows FindFirst/FindNext APIs to view and scan files and folders.
It -potentially- opens a bigger security hole than merely software that hides from antivirus. It can hide from other tools as well. But is is different from the Sony Rootkit; it doesn't open up ridiculous holes. It seems most likely that this was a case of reusing code without understanding the security implications.
> And, now that it's potential vulnerability has been exposed, Symantec
> is releasing a new version without the protected recycle bin.
> In other words, too bad they had to have their wrists slapped to fix
> it, but there was no malicious attempt.
And, equally importantly, they didn't need to be dragged kicking and screaming, with the threat of lawsuits, into remediating the problem. That makes it a much smaller story.
> such changes don't happen overnight just because a demand increases.
... though some of my CS academic
> When we're talking about properly educating people (and by properly, I mean
> both intensive CS background in theory and practice, and then practical
> coding in real world environments in quantity to become a good coder as
> well), it will take five or more years for a demand spike to produce a supply
> rise.
Possibly longer. After training and experience, there is also "shake-out", where those who just don't have the stuff to be developers end up in areas where they can make a contribution.
> The projects I am involved with today won't wait five years for
> programmers. This is business fact; if they aren't started now, and
> completed in an economical timeframe, then companies will go out of
> business and not be around to hire those better programmers in 5 years.
Which illustrates what the management of many firms refuses to accept; that there are two problems, with two solutions. One: fill the gaps now to be competitive, and two: develop the talent for the future, in order to remain competitive.
It's not just IT; the majority of firms in the US stopped thinking past the next couple of years quite a while ago.
> And one thing I don't want to see is formal programming CS programs which
> produce CS professors exclusively
> aquaintences dislike me saying so, from what I see, few of their graduates
> go into coding in industry. That's a pretty unfortunate thing for the
> world. To be ultimately useful, these skills need to become things which
> take people out of college, into industry, and successfully into
> challenging industry projects.
Absolutely. I've seen a number of situations where an academic writer has decried the failure of industry to implement a solution academics consider solved.
Unfortunately, the solution is "on display in a cellar, where the lights (and the stairs) have gone, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory..."
The best academic training is only an exercise in ego stroking unless the people who receive that training get out into the world and change it.
> ...they don't allow users even low-level SUDO access, to do silly things like ,so I understand their perspective and wish to keep
> change file permissions or ownerships, in a tracked environment. I am an
> ex-*NIX admin myself
> control over the environment, but as a user, I'm frustrated by having to
> frequently call the help-desk just to get a file ownership changed or a
> specific package installed.
You already have some replies on the file ownership issue. I suspect if you provide more details, people can give you more tips.
But why do you need packages installed? In a controlled environment, you would normally be working with the versions of various packages that are ordinarily provided, plus a core set of additional packages for development. The only exception I would see to this is if you are doing exploratory analysis of various development tools. In a situation like that, I'd suggest a smaller, separate network for this testing, on which you may have elevated permissions.
Good point. Given that you work in the finance industry, do you think there is a way the question can be asked or the point raised, in a way that would not be off-putting?
Basically, this question serves 2 purposes:
- find out how good/bad/high-maintenance the code base you'll be supporting is
- demonstrate to the interviewer an interest in and an awareness of the importance of code quality
There would be ways to find out something about the first concern even without seeing the code. If a techie is in the interview with me (happens often, these days), I like to ask specific questions about the code to determine what it's like even without looking at it.
How would you rephrase this question? Thanks!
-----------
Up until 6 years ago, a few computers were scattered around, but
processes and business was still being done the old-fashioned
way (with paper). When the IS department was started, it was
started by a hobbyist (he was named IS Manager before I showed
up), who knew nothing about management or any of the major
issues that befall a traditional IS dept.
With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations (some are
floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my title
is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority)
on my own.
What is the best way for new IS managers to convince their
superiors of the need for widespread change?
-------------
Managers coming from a "PC-free" environment will have enormous difficulty in understanding the objective requirements of managing the number of systems you're referring to.
But they aren't idiots, normally. They can understand growth and change; they can follow basic math and unserstand staffing.
Generate some report aids: [single-digit number of PCs in 1999] versus 110 PCs in 2005. Compare the normal staffing of other firms. For that number of users, a staff of 3 is quite reasonable; in many firms, the staff would be more like 6-8.
Get an actual breakdown of the time spent on various tasks; show additional tasks that -aren't- getting done, as well as estimates for the time necessary to do them. Include the planning tasks you want to work on.
--------------
I have 3 things that management and I currently don't see eye to
eye on:
--------------
Bluntly, management is in charge. If they view the functions of IS differently than you do, guess what? You're wrong. If you have reasons for feeling that duties management has assigned to IS staff should be elsewhere, then you need to change their minds by providing the (non-techie business-oriented) evidence.
Bluntly, I don't agree with you on 2 of three things you mentioned either. While connectivity is a core IS concern, I'd laugh in your face if you tried to get me to believe it's the only concern. And, bluntly, I'd adamantly insist that a primary function of IS is to work with other divisions, assisting and advising on planning and procurement.
If you need additional staff to handle those duties, it wouldn't surprise me. Particularly if they want to add application development and procurement. That's one reason many firms with similar numbers of users have 6-8 people rather than 3.
Be prepared to lose on moving these tasks outside of IS. I am a techie, and if I was your boss, I'd insist they -are- your responsibility, and replace you if you failed to comply. But I'd also give you more staff, so you could handle it.
If I were you, I'd also be prepared to lose. I've seen similar situations where people got ground up. The engineers in charge were absolutely adamant that there was no need for additional staff until -after- they burned through 5 complete changes of IT staff and management in one year.
A lot of engineers don't like to admit that computers require the same level of skill as [insert engineer's field here]. Because of this, they often insist on keeping staff far too low and hiring underqualified people long after someone more unbiased would admit there might be a problem.
> It is illegal for them to gather above certain numbers without permits (as with
> all organizations). It is illegal for them to block sidewalks (as with all
> other organizations)...You apparently agree... yet don't like the particular
> word I use to express my thought
Fair enough. The way I read your post seemed to indicate that religious expression is limited in ways in -addition- to the normal limitations on other speech. As clarified, yes, I'd say we're in agreement.
> If you take my words in context (regarding the religious connotations of the
> 10 Commandments), 100% of them were removed. The only one that stayed
> demonstrated significant non-religious meaning.
No argument. But I'd still point out that "religious connotation" isn't the acid test on posting the ten commandments. It's more than that. In a purely religious connotation, it has still been permitted, as long as it's part of an display of religious symbols/information which is open to all religions.
>> Public prayer, and religious assembly is expressly protected, -even- in public schools.
> No, it is not. A coach can't lead a team prayer in a public school.
True. But the quarterback -can-. Public prayer is expressly protected. Only administration/faculty led prayer is prohibited. As long as it is student led and spontaneous, it's just about always permitted. It -may- be permitted if it is student led but not spontaneous, but that's a more complicated question.
> That doesn't seem to me that it fits the definition of "expressly protected."
> What is protected is what is always protected, the right to free speech...
Such as the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, or make libelous statements? A right can be expressly protected while still having limits.
> Though, the ACLU has, on more than one occassion, fought for the right of
> students to worship as they see fit.
And teachers and faculty; just not to lead the students in worship.
I think we're mostly in complete agreement, as you say. I think we are viewing matters from slightly different angles, and we definitely express ourselves differently. Thanks for your comments.
> I think that there are different definitions in use.
? id=15483
5 0302.html
Yes. The ones you are using are not precisely representative of the law in the US, however.
> I have a freedom from having religion forced upon me.
Yes.
> I do not have the "freedom" of forcing all those around me from expressing their religion.
Yes.
> I have the freedom of not having the state force it upon me.
Yes.
> They can't make me pay for and walk past the 10 Commandments in the courthouse.
Actually, they can. This is an area where a lot of people are unaware of the current rulings by the courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public facility, including a courthouse, is often permissible.
This is partly due to the fact that many of the Ten Commandments factor into the historical basis for the law, and partly because religious expression isn't prohibited, only endorsement. If the context indicates many religious and non-religious views can be expressed in that area, it can be permissible. Context is critical.
If it's paid for privately, there is even more leeway.
A link with a decent analysis and references to cases:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx
> They can't force me to pray every morning.
True.
> But I can't force you, a private citizen, from expressing your religion,
> whether on your private property or unobtrusively on public property.
Yes and no. You actually -can't- require that religious expression be unobtrusive in public places. Obtrusive, in your face, loud, boisterous, impossible to ignore religious expression is not only permissible in public places, it can only be prohibited or restricted in very narrow ways.
One factor is that it cannot be restricted more than non-religious expression. If I can have a "Promote Recycling" rally that uses bullhorns, chanting, direct contact with passers-by, then I can do all the same things for a religious event in the same public venue. Religious speech is almost -never- more restricted than other speech.
Public prayer, and religious assembly is expressly protected, -even- in public schools. There have been some cases about that; students leading public services against abortion and the like on school grounds. The ruling is always that it can't be prohibited, only controlled to the minimum level needed to avoid distrupting learning.
Some ACLU references:
http://www.aclu.org//religion/tencomm/16254res200