I have shelled out ~$140 to legally watch the first few seasons of a Showtime series which is currently in its last season. I would *gladly* pay to legally obtain access to the current season. Unfortunately, it is not available for me to do so. Therefore, I have to comb the internet every single week to find the new episode. This is becoming more and more time consuming and complex.
I'm curious about where the link to the legally available episode would point to? I assume that it would point to Showtime.com where I would be advised to contact my local cable company to purchase service and subsequently subscribe to Showtime. Suddenly legally purchasing one episode of a tv show becomes a several-hundred-dollar affair.
This seems wrong. Having cut the cable several years ago, this is the kind of punishment that I have been subject to repeatedly.
That's the first thing I wondered. Until I got my current job with a software company, I was around the same type of IT people. The big difference was that the IT department in my other companies was seen as a necessary expense in order to keep everything running. This tends to shape the attitudes of IT folks, who only get yelled at when stuff doesn't work but who otherwise are relatively invisible. The IT department in my current company absolutely must work in concern with developers, customer support, and executives because our infrastructure simply must support a complex, secure, and ever-changing environment.
Some of the wisdom that you will probably gain if you stick with it is that change in any IT infrastructure is absolutely frightening, be it hardware or software. Veterans understand that each and every piece of hardware and software is tweaked to meet the business requirements of your company, and any small change to anything can bring the whole thing down. Even an OEM-recommended upgrade to a server that has been tested thoroughly can have unexpected and disastrous results. An enterprise level OS upgrade is "nontrivial" and, if your system was already working with XP and there was no compelling reason to upgrade, their attitude is completely understandable.
As you learn how to coexist more peacefully with your IT co-workers, you will notice that everyone has specialized knowledge that everyone else relies on and respects. It is that specialized knowledge that makes them good co-workers. If you respect that and understand that--like you-- they are just doing their jobs, you will understand that the "pat on the back" you seem to desire will come in the form of their mutual respect.
Lastly, as someone you would consider an "older" co-worker, I would say that the any new workers who don't know The System have the potential to be relatively dangerous. They landed their respective jobs because they have lots of knowledge, but don't know enough about The System to understand why things are the way they are. So if you feel coddled or treated in some way that makes you feel under appreciated, I'm guessing it is because you haven't made any impression otherwise yet. You were just doing your job.
If there is anything impeding your ability to get your job done-- AND you wait until your performance review to say something-- I do not want you to work for me. That shows a complete misunderstanding of what it is to be an employee of a company.
If you inform your immediate supervisor that you are having trouble getting your work done, and s/he doesn't take action, then you need to go up the chain until you can find someone who will listen. However, you must also realize that it is perfectly legitimate for them to tell you to work within the constraints that you are given or get the hell out. You must also realize that the tool you "need" to get your job done might not actually be necessary or warrant an expense for the company.
If your company *truly* cripples employees' ability to get the job done, then you should jump ship anyway because it won't be long until they're out of business.
This looks like an example of the blind acceptance of perceived authority, like this guy's experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram Of course there is an element of danger in publishing false facts under the guise of authority, because most human beings have no ability to objectively weigh facts and opinions against their own viewpoint to inform and evolve their own positions on various subjects.
I won't, but I found it curious that Facebook recently attempted to convince me that I needed to add my home address and phone number to my profile to "make my account more secure."
Ah, you are outlining how you were victimized by a difficult childhood marked by irresponsible "adults," substance abuse, and the illegality of that substance. This is not-so-subtly similar to problems that exists in many other households where "pharmaceuticals" or "intoxicants" are readily available and abused by others.
Many of these substances have equally devastating results on children, even though they are legal. So, singling out marijuana, based on your singular experience, and arguing that it is any different, is simply misunderstanding the larger issues.
You have pretty much described a Roku box. I have it and it does a lot of that; there are currently a few different home media solutions. The one I am using is only in its development stage, and you have to know how to encode stuff to work on it. Once you figure that out, it's a really nice piece.
However that doesn't mean that everything should be public, that the government should have no right to have information that is its own.
The government is not an individual, so I am not sure how its "right to privacy" can exactly be compared to an individual's right to privacy (in your example, his finances).
The government is built on the backs of individual citizens who have created, contribute to, and participate in its existence. If these citizens are not allowed to have all of the available information, they can't make informed choices about their government.
Everyone seems to be missing the picture. 100% on Demand, all the time, is what we're shooting for here. DVR-- okay, but that's just the stepping stone for On Demand All the Time.
I canceled my Comcast (er, Xfinity??) subscription 7 months ago and have not looked back. In fact, I watch more "TV" than ever through my Roku box, simply because I have many more choices at my fingertips 24/7. Not to mention that I'm paying 50% of the price (yes, including my bandwidth costs).
Of note is that I have an 11-year-old daughter, whose initial groans about ditching cable tv have been replaced by the complete delight she experiences discovering that her favorite movies and tv shows are already available on Netflix; and she is also discovering classic TV such as the Adams family and Ren & Stimpy and lots of other great stuff.
With this Hulu offering (which will only get better over time), the existing "gaps" in programming will become completely irrelevant (although they are already irrelevant to me personally). Not to mention Pandora Radio, which is available free through the Roku, out of the box.
PLUS-- I have a little USB ATSC tuner with DVR software, which records my network shows off of the air in full HD including Dolby 5.1 soundtrack. Remember that digital switchover? It worked! And the picture is way better than what my Comcast picture was.
Currently, this costs me 75 USD/month, which includes a kick-ass 4G internet service with unlimited bandwidth usage, VOIP, Netflix, and now Hulu. Considering that I was paying twice that much with Comcast, without any pay channels nor HD (which I'm not even sure why they were trying to charge me extra for) nor DVR, I'm more than satisfied.
Just thought I'd weigh in with my experience. I'm not a typical TV-addicted American; or, I didn't used to be.
As a support guy, it has recently occurred to me that the Bible is sort of like a tech manual. The stuff in there probably has some value, but the writer doesn't really understand what he is writing about, and the reader is stupid.
I think this argument, which is relatively cogent, boils down to "funding has to come from somewhere," and that makes some sense. I think what this represents, though, is the intersection between ethics and capitalism. A company like Pepsi, perhaps indirectly, gains editorial clout by contributing cash to the site.
Therefore, it becomes a strong possibility that, even if the "Pepsi Blog" were to be scientifically accurate, independent blog articles on the site that tout the harmful effects of PepsiCo's products on the human body are unlikely to gain their due attention-- or worse, might be censored. After all, PepsiCo has a major interest in keeping the bar to gaining public awareness of issues that conflict with their profit interest high.
I have recently begun a quest for better health after suffering from stomach pain and being overweight. I was amazed at how ignorant I was even in the simple area of knowing what a proper "portion" of food is. The problem is that large junk food brands have the ability to flood us with imagery of how great their stuff tastes, on a scale that is quite disproportionate to what is actually nutritionally healthy to help maintain proper body weight.
At the end of the day, the growth of PepsiCo and other junk food companies rests on the notion of our gluttony; how they can convince us to consume more and more of their products. This is in direct conflict with what is healthy for the human body. Without an equal awareness of what an actual human diet should consist of, it feels unethical that PepsiCo would be in a position to further suppress information that could benefit many people.
I don't think Twitter will have the longevity of the Internet, though. Twitter is a fad, and all of today's self-important tweeters will eventually get sick of it and it will simply turn into another outlet for advertisers to blast us with sales pitches.
Regardless of whether people are *actually* interchangeable or not, turnover is a fact of life in the real world. Some forethought regarding how to capture and maintain documentation is crucial, along with the understanding that knowledge is a by-product of everything that you do.
As such, following a knowledge management procedure should be part of everyone's job description. If organized and maintained properly, a knowledge base should present many ways of drilling down into the information, so that not knowing which key word to search for isn't the end of the world.
Why is it that we can find little obscure facts on the Internet so easily, yet can't find significant facts within a finite data set within our respective companies? It seems that people accept the meme that there's no such thing as a good knowledge management system and, therefore, it's not worth spending any time (money) on implementing one. So, people stockpile information in their little wikis, which die because people eventually get sick of maintaining them.
Phew! I thought that you were going to say that you've had enough of the stereotype that Canadians say "eh" and pronounce words like "about" funny ("aboot").
The sum total of replies here seem to convey a sort of offense that folks have taken to the notion that games are not art, without any real discussion of what seem to be his two central arguments:
1. "Games and Art are mutually exclusive things, by definition." That seems reasonable to me, for simplicity's sake. As for an in-depth philosophical discussion, maybe you could dissect this point and refute it.
2. "No game creators are held up with the same reverence as great poets or painters." I'm not sure how one would refute this fact. The only thing I would say is that lots of time seems to pass before anyone's work is typically appreciated as "great."
I pose one simple question: Who cares?
I get suspicious when people are so offended by semantics. I think many of us have matured to a degree that we view the label "nerd" as either a badge of honor, or as an inaccurate label of someone who is simply different. (No, I'm not trying to trivialize the issue of bullying by children, I'm speaking from the point of view of an adult who isn't going through that stuff.) It's totally subjective, and kind of silly to waste a lot of time or thought on, IMHO.
Enjoy your games. Be amazed. Immerse yourself. Does the possibility that what you are experiencing is not "art" detract from your experience? I hope not!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm holding out for Google 'Stache.
I have shelled out ~$140 to legally watch the first few seasons of a Showtime series which is currently in its last season. I would *gladly* pay to legally obtain access to the current season. Unfortunately, it is not available for me to do so. Therefore, I have to comb the internet every single week to find the new episode. This is becoming more and more time consuming and complex.
I'm curious about where the link to the legally available episode would point to? I assume that it would point to Showtime.com where I would be advised to contact my local cable company to purchase service and subsequently subscribe to Showtime. Suddenly legally purchasing one episode of a tv show becomes a several-hundred-dollar affair.
This seems wrong. Having cut the cable several years ago, this is the kind of punishment that I have been subject to repeatedly.
>> unreasonable
The government is very good at manufacturing reasons; that is why the 4th ammendment doesn't guarantee a right to privacy.
That's the first thing I wondered. Until I got my current job with a software company, I was around the same type of IT people. The big difference was that the IT department in my other companies was seen as a necessary expense in order to keep everything running. This tends to shape the attitudes of IT folks, who only get yelled at when stuff doesn't work but who otherwise are relatively invisible. The IT department in my current company absolutely must work in concern with developers, customer support, and executives because our infrastructure simply must support a complex, secure, and ever-changing environment.
Some of the wisdom that you will probably gain if you stick with it is that change in any IT infrastructure is absolutely frightening, be it hardware or software. Veterans understand that each and every piece of hardware and software is tweaked to meet the business requirements of your company, and any small change to anything can bring the whole thing down. Even an OEM-recommended upgrade to a server that has been tested thoroughly can have unexpected and disastrous results. An enterprise level OS upgrade is "nontrivial" and, if your system was already working with XP and there was no compelling reason to upgrade, their attitude is completely understandable.
As you learn how to coexist more peacefully with your IT co-workers, you will notice that everyone has specialized knowledge that everyone else relies on and respects. It is that specialized knowledge that makes them good co-workers. If you respect that and understand that--like you-- they are just doing their jobs, you will understand that the "pat on the back" you seem to desire will come in the form of their mutual respect.
Lastly, as someone you would consider an "older" co-worker, I would say that the any new workers who don't know The System have the potential to be relatively dangerous. They landed their respective jobs because they have lots of knowledge, but don't know enough about The System to understand why things are the way they are. So if you feel coddled or treated in some way that makes you feel under appreciated, I'm guessing it is because you haven't made any impression otherwise yet. You were just doing your job.
http://www.vhsps.com/ -- check it out.
If there is anything impeding your ability to get your job done-- AND you wait until your performance review to say something-- I do not want you to work for me. That shows a complete misunderstanding of what it is to be an employee of a company.
If you inform your immediate supervisor that you are having trouble getting your work done, and s/he doesn't take action, then you need to go up the chain until you can find someone who will listen. However, you must also realize that it is perfectly legitimate for them to tell you to work within the constraints that you are given or get the hell out. You must also realize that the tool you "need" to get your job done might not actually be necessary or warrant an expense for the company.
If your company *truly* cripples employees' ability to get the job done, then you should jump ship anyway because it won't be long until they're out of business.
This looks like an example of the blind acceptance of perceived authority, like this guy's experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram
Of course there is an element of danger in publishing false facts under the guise of authority, because most human beings have no ability to objectively weigh facts and opinions against their own viewpoint to inform and evolve their own positions on various subjects.
This paragraph reminds me of a baseball game. Way too long, and packed full of stuff that makes me sleepy.
I won't, but I found it curious that Facebook recently attempted to convince me that I needed to add my home address and phone number to my profile to "make my account more secure."
Ah, you are outlining how you were victimized by a difficult childhood marked by irresponsible "adults," substance abuse, and the illegality of that substance. This is not-so-subtly similar to problems that exists in many other households where "pharmaceuticals" or "intoxicants" are readily available and abused by others.
Many of these substances have equally devastating results on children, even though they are legal. So, singling out marijuana, based on your singular experience, and arguing that it is any different, is simply misunderstanding the larger issues.
Cole'slaw.
You have pretty much described a Roku box. I have it and it does a lot of that; there are currently a few different home media solutions. The one I am using is only in its development stage, and you have to know how to encode stuff to work on it. Once you figure that out, it's a really nice piece.
However that doesn't mean that everything should be public, that the government should have no right to have information that is its own.
The government is not an individual, so I am not sure how its "right to privacy" can exactly be compared to an individual's right to privacy (in your example, his finances).
The government is built on the backs of individual citizens who have created, contribute to, and participate in its existence. If these citizens are not allowed to have all of the available information, they can't make informed choices about their government.
Everyone seems to be missing the picture. 100% on Demand, all the time, is what we're shooting for here. DVR-- okay, but that's just the stepping stone for On Demand All the Time.
I canceled my Comcast (er, Xfinity??) subscription 7 months ago and have not looked back. In fact, I watch more "TV" than ever through my Roku box, simply because I have many more choices at my fingertips 24/7. Not to mention that I'm paying 50% of the price (yes, including my bandwidth costs).
Of note is that I have an 11-year-old daughter, whose initial groans about ditching cable tv have been replaced by the complete delight she experiences discovering that her favorite movies and tv shows are already available on Netflix; and she is also discovering classic TV such as the Adams family and Ren & Stimpy and lots of other great stuff.
With this Hulu offering (which will only get better over time), the existing "gaps" in programming will become completely irrelevant (although they are already irrelevant to me personally). Not to mention Pandora Radio, which is available free through the Roku, out of the box.
PLUS-- I have a little USB ATSC tuner with DVR software, which records my network shows off of the air in full HD including Dolby 5.1 soundtrack. Remember that digital switchover? It worked! And the picture is way better than what my Comcast picture was.
Currently, this costs me 75 USD/month, which includes a kick-ass 4G internet service with unlimited bandwidth usage, VOIP, Netflix, and now Hulu. Considering that I was paying twice that much with Comcast, without any pay channels nor HD (which I'm not even sure why they were trying to charge me extra for) nor DVR, I'm more than satisfied.
Just thought I'd weigh in with my experience. I'm not a typical TV-addicted American; or, I didn't used to be.
As a support guy, it has recently occurred to me that the Bible is sort of like a tech manual. The stuff in there probably has some value, but the writer doesn't really understand what he is writing about, and the reader is stupid.
Also, this is the information that traditionally communications consultants spend hours gathering through interviews and focus groups.
I think Josh Holloway (Sawyer, of Lost fame) would be pretty good.
I think this argument, which is relatively cogent, boils down to "funding has to come from somewhere," and that makes some sense. I think what this represents, though, is the intersection between ethics and capitalism. A company like Pepsi, perhaps indirectly, gains editorial clout by contributing cash to the site.
Therefore, it becomes a strong possibility that, even if the "Pepsi Blog" were to be scientifically accurate, independent blog articles on the site that tout the harmful effects of PepsiCo's products on the human body are unlikely to gain their due attention-- or worse, might be censored. After all, PepsiCo has a major interest in keeping the bar to gaining public awareness of issues that conflict with their profit interest high.
I have recently begun a quest for better health after suffering from stomach pain and being overweight. I was amazed at how ignorant I was even in the simple area of knowing what a proper "portion" of food is. The problem is that large junk food brands have the ability to flood us with imagery of how great their stuff tastes, on a scale that is quite disproportionate to what is actually nutritionally healthy to help maintain proper body weight.
At the end of the day, the growth of PepsiCo and other junk food companies rests on the notion of our gluttony; how they can convince us to consume more and more of their products. This is in direct conflict with what is healthy for the human body. Without an equal awareness of what an actual human diet should consist of, it feels unethical that PepsiCo would be in a position to further suppress information that could benefit many people.
IOW, War = Peace.
Riiiiight.
I don't think Twitter will have the longevity of the Internet, though. Twitter is a fad, and all of today's self-important tweeters will eventually get sick of it and it will simply turn into another outlet for advertisers to blast us with sales pitches.
Regardless of whether people are *actually* interchangeable or not, turnover is a fact of life in the real world. Some forethought regarding how to capture and maintain documentation is crucial, along with the understanding that knowledge is a by-product of everything that you do.
As such, following a knowledge management procedure should be part of everyone's job description. If organized and maintained properly, a knowledge base should present many ways of drilling down into the information, so that not knowing which key word to search for isn't the end of the world.
Why is it that we can find little obscure facts on the Internet so easily, yet can't find significant facts within a finite data set within our respective companies? It seems that people accept the meme that there's no such thing as a good knowledge management system and, therefore, it's not worth spending any time (money) on implementing one. So, people stockpile information in their little wikis, which die because people eventually get sick of maintaining them.
Phew! I thought that you were going to say that you've had enough of the stereotype that Canadians say "eh" and pronounce words like "about" funny ("aboot").
The sum total of replies here seem to convey a sort of offense that folks have taken to the notion that games are not art, without any real discussion of what seem to be his two central arguments:
1. "Games and Art are mutually exclusive things, by definition." That seems reasonable to me, for simplicity's sake. As for an in-depth philosophical discussion, maybe you could dissect this point and refute it.
2. "No game creators are held up with the same reverence as great poets or painters." I'm not sure how one would refute this fact. The only thing I would say is that lots of time seems to pass before anyone's work is typically appreciated as "great."
I pose one simple question: Who cares?
I get suspicious when people are so offended by semantics. I think many of us have matured to a degree that we view the label "nerd" as either a badge of honor, or as an inaccurate label of someone who is simply different. (No, I'm not trying to trivialize the issue of bullying by children, I'm speaking from the point of view of an adult who isn't going through that stuff.) It's totally subjective, and kind of silly to waste a lot of time or thought on, IMHO.
Enjoy your games. Be amazed. Immerse yourself. Does the possibility that what you are experiencing is not "art" detract from your experience? I hope not!
It depends on what is exposed.
Poopbuntu.