If you look around one day and realize that you're not one of the youngest or least-tenured people in the room, it's time to pull the cord.
I did help desk for an ISP. I was never one of the youngest people there and by the time my job was outsourced, I was senior to most of the people in the company. I was still doing help desk, at top level, because I'd come to realize that I actually liked doing it. The trouble-shooting was a constant challenge because no matter how fool-proof you make your software, nature keeps coming up with fools who can manage to mess things up, and with the constantly-changing OS issues of Windows, there was always more to learn. For me, at least, it was a very satisfying job because every day I could go home knowing that there were at least twenty or so people who's days were a little better because I'd helped them. Not everybody can think that way, but if you can, the help desk doesn't have to become the hell desk.
No matter how you work things, that's going to happen; that's the whole point of triage: dividing people into three classes, those with minor needs, those who must be helped right now and those who can't be helped. It's never nice to have to tell somebody that you can't help them, but sometimes it has to be done.
I work, mostly, in tech support, and even there I have to tell people that I'm not going to help them; not that I can't, I won't. Why? Well, if they want help with a program that's not from my company, I'm not about to help, even if I know the answer. Sometimes I can't help because they want me to get around restrictions put in by their management, and I'm not about to get involved in that. Other times, they're asking for service outside of their contract, and I can't give it to them. I don't like telling that to people, but it's part of my job, and I never hesitate. Granted, it's not the same thing as telling somebody they're going to die because I won't help them, but sometimes they make it sound that way.
I think the problem here is that you are arguing about how the world should be and I'm talking only about how it is; if so, we can go on forever, without getting anywhere.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I mean that, no matter what you do, there are going to be people left out unless you bankrupt the country trying to give everybody all the medical care they might need. No government can afford that, and those that try are either on the edge of running broke, taxing their population into poverty or both. As I don't want to see that happen here, I'm willing to accept the fact that we can't always do as much as we'd like. Deal with it.
Also, usually doctors have a word in what procedures you _need_.
And, from all I've heard, in countries with National Health Care the government decides what procedures you can have, and if what you need isn't on the list, you don't get it.
No, I'm being realistic. This is the way the world works. Deal with it, instead of coming up with an endless set of contrived corner cases. No matter how you try, you'll never come up with a way to give everybody all the health care they need without bankrupting your country, because the more you give the more they decide they need.
I hate to sound abusive about this, as I'd only consider myself a mediocre programmer to begin with, but this looks like it rests solely on the programmer who writes shit code.
Never be ashamed of yourself for saying what you think is true! The idea that Microsoft (or any software company) could and should protect us from stupid programmers or is to blame for what's done with their programs is part and parcel of the nanny-state mentality that's doing its best to drag the US into the dirt. This nation was built by people who were willing to take responsibility for their actions and will remain great only as long as we have people like that. Alas, it's more popular today to expect somebody else (anybody else) to take responsibility for your actions and sue them when you're bit by your own stupidity. We were a great nation, once...
If somebody works for fifty years for a factory, they'll have a pension and medical coverage. That's one of the reasons people stay with a company that long. You can make up strawmen until you're blue in the face, but it won't change reality.
Of course. I was using that as an example that the average Slashdotter would probably recognize so that they could understand what it's like having an unresolved cliffhanger.
It is interesting that you choose hound as your "good dog".
Well, it would be if that's what he'd done. He said that it was a Shepherd, a dog that chases by sight, not a hound, a dog that tracks by scent. Nothing about good dog/bad dog there, just different ways of following the quarry.
You make a tool/language/framework for developers, you better make it idiot proof
Why? It's not their responsibility to see to it that you can't write bad code for their program any more than it's the responsibility of car manufacturers to build cars that can't crash no matter how they're driven. There's only so much MSFT can do to protect lusers against their own stupidity, and if badly trained developers write vulnerable code, it's their own damned fault. I'm no Microsoft fanboi, but even I only bash them when they deserve it.
What this is, basically, is emulating the Java in Javascript, an interpreted language. I can't help but feel that anything written in this is going to be very slow, and I can't, personally, see why anybody would bother. Of course, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong!
It's a story of criminals, theives, terrorists and a fascict Federation. Possibly inspired by Lucas' Empire in Star Wars.
If you'll take a look, you'll see that the Federation symbol in Blake is the Trek communicator turned on it's side. That's because it's roughly based on the Trek Federation gone bad. Instead of everybody works together, you have constant backstabbing; instead of electric razors that stun, you have cattle prods that kill.
There are good reasons for how the show ended. First, from all I've heard, Gareth Thomas only came back on the understanding that Blake would be killed off in such a way that he couldn't be brought back. Second, the show was supposed to be a season-ending cliffhanger, leaving the fans wondering who would survive and how. Then, during the hiatus, the show was canceled, leaving the cliffhanger unresolved. Unlike Farscape, there was never a TV movie resolving the story.
I've heard that B7 once had to stop shooting in a quarry because of noise. The director (I think) went over a ridge to find out what was going on and found that Dr. Who was using the same quarry.
There were always seven on the "good guys" team. However, you sometimes had to count the AI running the Liberator and/or the obnoxiously arrogant computer they stole and put to use. One way or another, there were always 7.
I spent 7.5 years doing support for an ISP, and I can tell you exactly what the problem is: most of the people doing L1 "support" for an ISP aren't techs, they're just every day, garden variety computer users with little, if any understanding of what's actually going on. All they can do is listen to the symptoms, guess which cheat-sheet for that particular set is appropriate and try it. If that doesn't work, they give up.
I remember, once, doing L2 support, where I got a caller who'd called in with the same difficulty four times and was finally escalated. The first tech had picked the wrong "resolution," and the next three had blindly followed the same wrong set of instructions without ever asking themselves why it would work this time. Clearly, they all suffered from the Bullwinkle syndrome. I, OTOH, looked at what had happened, realized that they'd gone off in the wrong direction and did something that not only was different, but was The Right Thing. In fact, what I did what what should always have been the L1 tech's first line of attack. (I went through the network settings and corrected them instead of removing and replacing Dial-Up Networking Yet Again.)
Let's say that here's someone just retired after working in a factory for 50 years. Never got into any trouble, never hurt anyone in any significant, donated to some charities, etc. Now he has a fixed income and is diagnosed with cancer.
He goes to the insurance company that his pension plan is associated and gives them the bill.
Want to try another straw man? The rest of your post is nothing but ad homonem, and not worth bothering with replying to.
You're being accused of dismissing our failure to reach that goal by saying that life has been worse somewhere and somewhen else, akin to responding to a failing in our respect for human rights by claiming that at least we're better than China.
Accused unfairly. I'm not saying that we can't be better or that we should be content with our lot, I'm pointing out that no matter how hard we try, life is still going to be unfair and complaining about that isn't going to change anything.
As far as what causes the (occasional) horror stories I've heard about long waiting lists for what are routine procedures in the US, or other problems, you might be right. It may be that they're not spending enough money on their system. Of course, it might also have to do with the fact that they have other things they need to spend their limited resources on and don't want to tax their citizens (or, in the case of Britain, subjects) into complete bankruptcy.
No. I meant that he should accept the fact that life is unfair, and that people aren't about to change their ways just because you tell them they're not being fair because, in general, they don't have to be. If he doesn't think insurance companies are fair, he should become an advocate for insurance regulation reform, rather than whine about how unfair things are.
Yeah, and let's just ignore the part of the world that also has the same goal as America, but is doing a better job of it by providing health care for all of its people.
I've never yet been accused of claiming that we've succeeded in that goal, or that other countries might have done better. I've heard some great things about the health care in places like Canada and Britain and I've heard horror stories about it. It all depends on who you ask, and how you think it should work, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
I did help desk for an ISP. I was never one of the youngest people there and by the time my job was outsourced, I was senior to most of the people in the company. I was still doing help desk, at top level, because I'd come to realize that I actually liked doing it. The trouble-shooting was a constant challenge because no matter how fool-proof you make your software, nature keeps coming up with fools who can manage to mess things up, and with the constantly-changing OS issues of Windows, there was always more to learn. For me, at least, it was a very satisfying job because every day I could go home knowing that there were at least twenty or so people who's days were a little better because I'd helped them. Not everybody can think that way, but if you can, the help desk doesn't have to become the hell desk.
I work, mostly, in tech support, and even there I have to tell people that I'm not going to help them; not that I can't, I won't. Why? Well, if they want help with a program that's not from my company, I'm not about to help, even if I know the answer. Sometimes I can't help because they want me to get around restrictions put in by their management, and I'm not about to get involved in that. Other times, they're asking for service outside of their contract, and I can't give it to them. I don't like telling that to people, but it's part of my job, and I never hesitate. Granted, it's not the same thing as telling somebody they're going to die because I won't help them, but sometimes they make it sound that way.
I think the problem here is that you are arguing about how the world should be and I'm talking only about how it is; if so, we can go on forever, without getting anywhere.
No, no, no! Remember, we're talking Microsoft here. You administrate the system, not administer it!
When I hear about Microsoft getting into the "Enterprise Management" arena, I always expect them to pass out red shirts as freebies.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I mean that, no matter what you do, there are going to be people left out unless you bankrupt the country trying to give everybody all the medical care they might need. No government can afford that, and those that try are either on the edge of running broke, taxing their population into poverty or both. As I don't want to see that happen here, I'm willing to accept the fact that we can't always do as much as we'd like. Deal with it.
And, from all I've heard, in countries with National Health Care the government decides what procedures you can have, and if what you need isn't on the list, you don't get it.
No, I'm being realistic. This is the way the world works. Deal with it, instead of coming up with an endless set of contrived corner cases. No matter how you try, you'll never come up with a way to give everybody all the health care they need without bankrupting your country, because the more you give the more they decide they need.
Never be ashamed of yourself for saying what you think is true! The idea that Microsoft (or any software company) could and should protect us from stupid programmers or is to blame for what's done with their programs is part and parcel of the nanny-state mentality that's doing its best to drag the US into the dirt. This nation was built by people who were willing to take responsibility for their actions and will remain great only as long as we have people like that. Alas, it's more popular today to expect somebody else (anybody else) to take responsibility for your actions and sue them when you're bit by your own stupidity. We were a great nation, once...
If somebody works for fifty years for a factory, they'll have a pension and medical coverage. That's one of the reasons people stay with a company that long. You can make up strawmen until you're blue in the face, but it won't change reality.
Of course. I was using that as an example that the average Slashdotter would probably recognize so that they could understand what it's like having an unresolved cliffhanger.
Both together.
Well, it would be if that's what he'd done. He said that it was a Shepherd, a dog that chases by sight, not a hound, a dog that tracks by scent. Nothing about good dog/bad dog there, just different ways of following the quarry.
Why? It's not their responsibility to see to it that you can't write bad code for their program any more than it's the responsibility of car manufacturers to build cars that can't crash no matter how they're driven. There's only so much MSFT can do to protect lusers against their own stupidity, and if badly trained developers write vulnerable code, it's their own damned fault. I'm no Microsoft fanboi, but even I only bash them when they deserve it.
Hey, I used to have a TI 99/4A. Great little machine, back then!
What this is, basically, is emulating the Java in Javascript, an interpreted language. I can't help but feel that anything written in this is going to be very slow, and I can't, personally, see why anybody would bother. Of course, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong!
If you'll take a look, you'll see that the Federation symbol in Blake is the Trek communicator turned on it's side. That's because it's roughly based on the Trek Federation gone bad. Instead of everybody works together, you have constant backstabbing; instead of electric razors that stun, you have cattle prods that kill.
There are good reasons for how the show ended. First, from all I've heard, Gareth Thomas only came back on the understanding that Blake would be killed off in such a way that he couldn't be brought back. Second, the show was supposed to be a season-ending cliffhanger, leaving the fans wondering who would survive and how. Then, during the hiatus, the show was canceled, leaving the cliffhanger unresolved. Unlike Farscape, there was never a TV movie resolving the story.
I've heard that B7 once had to stop shooting in a quarry because of noise. The director (I think) went over a ridge to find out what was going on and found that Dr. Who was using the same quarry.
There were always seven on the "good guys" team. However, you sometimes had to count the AI running the Liberator and/or the obnoxiously arrogant computer they stole and put to use. One way or another, there were always 7.
The ratio is exactly pi because pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
I remember, once, doing L2 support, where I got a caller who'd called in with the same difficulty four times and was finally escalated. The first tech had picked the wrong "resolution," and the next three had blindly followed the same wrong set of instructions without ever asking themselves why it would work this time. Clearly, they all suffered from the Bullwinkle syndrome. I, OTOH, looked at what had happened, realized that they'd gone off in the wrong direction and did something that not only was different, but was The Right Thing. In fact, what I did what what should always have been the L1 tech's first line of attack. (I went through the network settings and corrected them instead of removing and replacing Dial-Up Networking Yet Again.)
He goes to the insurance company that his pension plan is associated and gives them the bill.
Want to try another straw man? The rest of your post is nothing but ad homonem, and not worth bothering with replying to.
Accused unfairly. I'm not saying that we can't be better or that we should be content with our lot, I'm pointing out that no matter how hard we try, life is still going to be unfair and complaining about that isn't going to change anything.
As far as what causes the (occasional) horror stories I've heard about long waiting lists for what are routine procedures in the US, or other problems, you might be right. It may be that they're not spending enough money on their system. Of course, it might also have to do with the fact that they have other things they need to spend their limited resources on and don't want to tax their citizens (or, in the case of Britain, subjects) into complete bankruptcy.
No. I meant that he should accept the fact that life is unfair, and that people aren't about to change their ways just because you tell them they're not being fair because, in general, they don't have to be. If he doesn't think insurance companies are fair, he should become an advocate for insurance regulation reform, rather than whine about how unfair things are.
I've never yet been accused of claiming that we've succeeded in that goal, or that other countries might have done better. I've heard some great things about the health care in places like Canada and Britain and I've heard horror stories about it. It all depends on who you ask, and how you think it should work, I guess.