Another OS is the last thing we need at this hour.
Many people said the same thing when something called "Linux" was first being released! "Who needs another OS?" "Geez.. how many Unix clones do we need?"
Yet, somehow, a small group of people perservered, and we have Linux today as an increasingly popular operating system.
It's all a matter of choice. They love their OS. They want to keep it going. Fine, more power to them! The more OSs, the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. I resent being forced to use any OS, be it Windows, Linux, BSD, OSX, or whatever. I like having the option to use what best fits my needs, or best fits what I'm doing.
But I just can't help getting the feeling that someting is missing from this story... it seems crazy that they would just sell the cards claiming them to have these features, and they wouldn't... at all. Would ATI really risk lawsuits and a bad image for that?
Sure they would, if they didn't think they'd get caught! Being nice, it might be a disconnect between the engineering/manufacturing and the Marketing division. IOW, "Our next boards will have to have HD on them." from engineering and marketing going "Our cards have HD compliance!"
As to reputation, ATI has had a mixed one for years. They were notorious for driver issues, and installing one of their "All-in-Wonder" cards was an exercise in frustration. The drivers supplied on the install CD wouldn't work. Then you'd download a revised driver set. Nope. Check again, and there'd be another revision. Eventually you'd give up and get an Nvidia card.
I've spent the past 5 years in areas where broadband was not available until recently. In the Southwest, there are areas where there is no telephone landline service, and some pretty good swaths of land where there is no electricity. In northern NY, here I live now, they just started rolling out DSL on a very limited basis.
It's hard for some of you to realize that the options you take for granted simply don't exist, and won't exist for some areas. I don't have a cell phone for the simple reason that there is no cell phone service here. There won't be for quite some time - environmental regulations. The cable companies here have no interest in offering anything more than basic and I do mean basic service! Yeah, you have to decide whether you're going to use cable, DSL, wireless, how much speed you want and how much you're going to pay. Some of us don't have those options at all. The options are satellite or paying for a T1 - and both are pretty damn expensive.
It's also been pointed out that many people don't feel the need for broadband. I know that's hard to imagine in this forum, but out in the Real World, it's true. Yes, I love broadband, and need it. I'm constantly downloading programs for trial/evaluation, CD ISOs for various OS distros, security patches, and browsing tech forums, and dial-up isn't going to cut it. But a lot of people don't do that. They check their e-mail, maybe browse a news or weather web site, an occasional search, and IM. You don't need broadband for that, dial-up works just fine. Yes, broadband makes all that nicer and faster, but it isn't a need.
The upshot is that until there's a real need at a reasonable price for the majority of people, you're not going to have universal broadband. Even then, remember there are an awful lot of people who don't need a computer!:D
Yes, I did read it.:) My apologies, I didn't mean it to seem that I was disagreeing, so much as amplifying from my own perspective. Guess I need to do better previews.:D
If Novell want people - especially corporate users - to move to their Linux distribution instead of using MacOS or MS Windows, then yes, identify the things that are blocking them, and then identify alternatives.
Good point, but the alternatives aren't always alternatives. If I have a choice of having to put together an entire suite of alternatives which may not have everything I need, combined with retraining all my user base, versus using a highly functional single program that has an existing trained user base, and easy-to-use UI, guess what I'm going to do? Particularly if that program is (like it or not) the industry standard program?
You have a some choices. 1) You persuade the software company to do a port to Linux. 2) You come up with a Linux app or a set of apps with all the functionality of the "standard" program, that has similar UI, and can interchange files with the standard. 3) You come up with a set of apps that has most of the features, and do your best to persuade people to use it, along with offering plenty of training. 4) You declare that the Linux apps are "good enough" and sneer at anyone who attempts to defend the standard program, and denigrate the program as "bloatware."
Which approach is likely to persuade people? 1&2 are the most likely to succeed, and three stands a pretty good chance. Unfortunately, I see a lot of posters here choosing #4.
Novell's done the Linux community a favor. Whether you use these applications or not (I don't), it gives us an idea of what still needs to be done to make Linux more popular. Like it or not, there is an application barrier. Businesses and people are not going to move away from Windows unless you have the applications they need, and you make it easy for them to do the move. This survey, and the suggestions are a start.
How about "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?" You've got the political upheaval, rebellion, and of course the potential really cool "bomb the Earth with rocks" sequence! Not to mention the intelligent computer!
I don't know about "Stranger in a Strange Land" - it really isn't something that I can see translating well to screen. "Revolt in 2100" might work better, or to really tick off the various religious groups - "Job, a comedy of errors."
It's funny that some of the posters here feel that the idea of "games" are new to military planning. If anything, games based on military maneuvers in war have been around since the beginning. What do you think chess is? It's a board representation of war. Not as we fight it today, but as it was fought.
The first quotes in the article give the wrong impression, really. No, any FPS is not like the real thing. I was pleased to see them mention "Marine Doom," since it was the first use of mods for an FPS in the military. But what it was for was to help practice maneuvers in small units. That is, to get soldiers to practice moving and working as a unit. Today, this is pretty much a feature of most FPS's - the networked "team" and "co-op" capabilities.
The idea in all training is to make it as realistic as possible, and to make (and correct) any mistakes there, not in the real thing. These games are an adjunct to that. It's a lot cheaper to go out and buy a couple of off-the-shelf games and consoles and run through some scenarios than it is to run it through in real life practices or massive simulators. They have their purpose as well, but the games give them a chance to make the "really stupid move!" at a much lower cost before they go to that point, and before they're in the real thing.
Doom was the first game that really blew me away, and I still have a copy of it that I play from time to time. What made it even better was that there were a host of different maps for it, so even when you got to the point of being bored with the original, there was always something new. It's nice to see that there's still ongoing development for it.
>The article just restates a problem that many others have seen with open-source projects: the geeks create all sort of shiny toys and efficient frameworks, but nobody actually bothers to test it for ease-of-use, or put a decent user-interface on top.
Actually, I see the problem in this case (and several others) as not so much that, as it is that if you leave geeks to their own devices, they'll work on what they want, never mind what they're supposed to. I've been guilty of this on occasion, as I'm sure many others have. The "ooh! shiny!" coding or app that you're playing with, instead of getting your principal job done. In the Real World, you get yanked back to reality by someone. In OSS, without strong leadership and a clear goal, you end up with an exercise in herding cats.
It's one of the things that hurts OSS. I can go out and proselytise all over, but you keep running into the "application barrier." The "Yes, we'd love to, but there are no applications for us." When you look, you find that there's no one interested in starting on it; there was a project that got dropped due to lack of interest by programmers; or it got forked off into something that isn't even close to what's needed. OTOH, closed source has a lot of options for them, unfortunately they all run on Windows. IOW, all the bright shiny "cool" stuff has OSS alternatives, while the prosaic, dull-but-necessary stuff often doesn't.
As I read this, what popped to mind was that they're acting like a union, but they don't want to call themselves a union. It's a sad commentary on unions that you have an organization negotiating with employers (or muscling them) for better pay, benefits, and working conditions for their employees, but it's "not a union."
It is a function of the industry maturing. The days when one or two people could sit down and turn out a killer game are pretty much gone - the technology has gotten too complex. It's also gotten to the point where the ability to hire the "young and foolish" is no longer a plus. The advanced skills needed are in the group of people who no longer feel like working 80+ hours a week.
I had user accounts on a Prime 400 and a VAX 11/750, but this was the first computer that was "mine". It was incredible, a "portable computer." You could put the keyboard up, a couple of snaps, and you could carry it around. OK, it weighed a ton, but still! Built-in monitor, a ton of bundled software, two disk drives, CPM, etc., etc.,etc.
I sometimes think back to that one when I sit trying to install some new word processing software that takes up more space on my hard drive and more RAM than before. Gee, I used to be able to do all of this on a computer with 64K of RAM, and off of a 360K floppy - and this new program does pretty much the same thing!
Exactly! Their mission is to make money. We're already seeing the erosion of the "social conscience," particularly regarding operations in other countries. From the stock reports, it looks like their stock is finally going to be moving downwards to be more in line with a normal P/E, and it'll be interesting to see how that affects their actions.
What has been bothering me about Google for a while is that no one there seems to be stopping to think about consequences and addressing them. More often I get the feeling that they're falling prey to the "This sooo cool! Let's release it!" syndrome, without anyone saying "Wait a minute..." The prime example is the Google Desktop adding in a "between computers" mode, which saves on Google's computers. Neat idea, but was it really needed? Did anyone there actually think beforehand about addressing obvious issues like privacy and security? Apparently not, judging from the flood of CYA statements out of them.
I'll trust Google to do web searches, show me maps, and search USENET archives. Anything else, they have to show me they deserve my trust, and so far they haven't done a good job.
I can't think of a single reason that the computers containing confidential information, personal medical records, and systems necessary for the day-to-day running of the hospital weren't on a stand-alone network in the first place.
Really? I can think of several right off the top of my head. Take a look at http://www.spheris.com/ or http://www.medquist.com/. These are just two of a number of companies that are out there, but they're among the biggest in their field.
There are a lot of healthcare organizations that use outsourced services for transcription, electronic document management, coding, even records storage. The answer to your question is that they would connect them to the Internet because that's the way they can get access to their charts, documents, and other information.
Microsoft software shouldn't be allowed in hospitals for the same reason pets aren't allowed in surgery rooms.
Nice - but do you know how little software for hospitals is available that doesn't require Windows? I'm serious. I know a lot of healthcare IT people who'd love to be able to move away from Windows, but you can't work with something that doesn't exist. Which is the state of OSS - and even the various closed *nix systems - in this area. Not enough applications.
A doctor who insists in having his MS-Windows computer connected to a critical hospital
That doesn't stop them from bringing in their own software disks. I spent a lot of time when I worked in a hospital IT setting, removing screensavers which took over all the workstation resources ("but it looked cool!"), AOL ("I wanted to check my e-mail") and various viruses ("I was working on this at home, and...") All of which was against hospital policy. The computers didn't even have modems, but that didn't stop them. These were all things that would have gotten a desk clerk fired in a heartbeat, but the most you could do to the doctors was to politely request that they not do it again.
A hospital that relies on a computer system that isn't secure enough cannot blame the crackers.
Absolutely you can blame the crackers! Just because I left my front door unlocked doesn't give you the right to walk into my house. Point out that I forgot to lock the door, fine. Anything else is not.
Yet another slashdot thread where everyone immediately starts screaming "Linux!" "BSD!" the second they hear the term "security breach". Of course, it'd be nice if there were actually a lot of applications for healthcare that run on those OSs - which there aren't. OSS is pretty thin on the ground when it comes to this field.
Why don't you look and see what's involved in hospital IT? I've been there, and it's a major headache for admins. You have administrators who don't really know much about computers and doctors who are frequently the biggest prima donnas in the world when it comes to getting what they want, in a corporate culture which caters to them.
Add in software developers who frequently have no clue as to what's actually needed, how to make a useable UI, and how information flows in a healthcare setting. But they have a hell of a sales pitch to the doctors and administrators, and you're the one who has to make it work.
Now try to secure it. Really! Wait until the first time Doctor X decides they're going to install their personal software on the workstation. Never mind that supposedly they're not allowed to do that - they'll do it anyways and then scream at you when you take it off. Take a wild guess as to who the hospital's going to back!
It's easy to blame the IT people, and the use of Windows, here. Wrong, but easy. They picked it up pretty quickly, and dealt with it. I'm sure they'd have loved to have more control, but unfortunately it's a question of what you're allowed to do, not what you want to do.
In a company where I was recruited, they had an IQ test and a programming test (SQL + general algorithms).
I had one of those companies try to recruit me about a decade ago. I wasn't looking for a job, but decided to check it out just out of curiousity. My interview was with the senior manager and one of the division directors. At the end of the interview, I was informed that I needed to take an "aptitude test." I couldn't believe it. They'd called me, not the other way around. They were recruiting me because of my skills, training, and experience - and they want me to take an aptitude test?! I turned down the job.
I could see doing this with a new person, right out of college or without experience. If you're recruiting experienced people, all you're going to do is antagonize them - particularly if you spring that requirement on them at the interview.
To the original question, about what you can do to leave a good impression with the unsuccessful candidates, I'll give the following tips:
1. Let them know they didn't get the job.
2. Tell them in a timely fashion. At the very least give them a time frame in which to expect your decision.
3. Let them know why (in a nice fashion) you decided not to hire them, and (if possible) what they could do to make themselves more attractive to your company in the future.
I've been on both sides of the desk - as an applicant, and as the one doing the hiring. One thing I made a decision was to try to never do the things that drove me nuts as an applicant, when I was the one doing the hiring. For the most part, I succeeded.
But just think of the impact on the many computer techs whose livelihood depends on having a steady stream of Gateway computers entering their shops for repair! When Packard-Bell went under, Gateway was there to pick up the slack. Now, they'll just have to rely on HP Pavilions.
Tell your biggest customers that they're no longer your priority.
Biggest does not mean profitable. In this case, just the opposite. Every business, if they hope to stay in business, does this in some form or another. The service levels match the profitability of the customer. It's why you have to go through several levels of phone prompts and wait listening to muzak to get tech support, while a corporation with a big $ support contract gets someone on the phone immediately.
This is the problem with any "flat fee" system. The profit is from those who use the system the least, not those who use it the most. Rent a lot of DVD's, and you're not their best customer, you're their worst.
So what everyone is complaining about is that NetFlix is giving priority to their best customers, while stepping back service to their worst customers.
When you know the boss is going to be around, with reporters, why would you be playing a game on your computer? I'm sorry the guy lost his job, and yes, I think a reprimand would have been more appropriate, but still, he wasn't very bright.
No, but neither has sitting in my chair replaced those tasks. Instead it's become a choice, and many of the outlets available do both to give you that choice.
We also don't "laugh at our grandparents" for doing things with the available technology at the time, and I doubt our grandchildren will laugh at us for not using technology we don't have. Well, I hope not!
Yes, our grandchildren will be laughing at the idea, just as we're laughing about our grandparents' leaving their home to see a movie... oh, wait... um, how about how we're laughing at our grandparents for buying a single song instead of an album...err, wait... Oh! We're laughing at at our grandparents for going to a grocery store to buy food instead of... oh damn!
This strikes me as Version 2.0 of the ideas that were being hyped back in the '90's. Remember when the idea of physical locations to buy anything was being derided as "obsolete," soon to be replaced by web stores? No one would be buying anything at a store, we'd all be buying over the Internet. Yet somehow people still are going to stores, and most of the "web only" retail businesses from that era are gone. We still buy all sorts of "obsolete" things like books.
He seems to ignore that people actually like having having their hands on a physical medium. I want the disk, I want the case, and no, I don't want to be locked into always downloading it with all the attending hassles. So no, I don't think that our grandchildren are going to be laughing at us.
This is one of those ideas that always sees to get developed by someone with more enthusiasm than common sense. There's a CNN article about this, and one quote from it really stood out for me: "Despite the privacy concerns likely to be raised, Google executives are confident the product will appeal to many people wanting a way to use a home computer to hunt data stored on an office computer, or vice versa."
"Privacy concerns?" Something like this is going to be a nightmare to many corporations! Yes, now your employees can transfer work files to their home computers - and vice versa. Can you say "security hole?" Suuure you can! I can't imagine there are too many network admins out there who are going to want this anywhere in their system.
Even for a home user, what's the point? Really, if you need to move personal files between computers there are already easy methods of doing so. Home networks, CDs or even, if you're a bit daring, uploading it to the space that many ISP's give you for webspace, and downloading it from there! You even get to delete it. Letting a third party like Google have access to it, and store it strikes me as very scary. Thanks, but no thanks!
Let's see if I get this right. I'm going to pay more money for a DVD that I can only play in a player that will cost $1800. Yeah, right. Oh, and it may not end up being the generally acceptable format? Ooookay!
I've got a better idea! Why don't I just sit here and wait? That's right, I'm going to wait about five or so years. That way, the price will have dropped on the players, and the battle over formats will have settled out. I figure I can somehow struggle along without having seen the movies you're releasing in this format, probably because...well... I've already seen them.
This is yet another repetition of the past. A NEW! HOT! TECHNOLOGY! which is supposed to IMPROVE! our ENTERTAINMENT! EXPERIENCE!. Ok, fine. But.. um, we have a couple of different formats and the prices are enormous! Betamax/VHS. DVD/VHS. Players running around one to two grand. Been there, done that, got the t-shirts. What I've learned is that there's no rush. Wait. Prices will come down on players. Format types will standardize. You won't feel scre^H^H^H^Hvictimized by the manufacturers/retailers.
"What makes sense for today's IT infrastructures, with data growth showing no sign of slowing?"
Both really. Alright, it's really cool that they can now store up to 512 terabytes. But for many businesses, that storage capacity isn't needed - and won't be for a while. By the time they do need it, they'd be at the point of needing to replace the old system anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Another OS is the last thing we need at this hour.
Many people said the same thing when something called "Linux" was first being released! "Who needs another OS?" "Geez.. how many Unix clones do we need?"
Yet, somehow, a small group of people perservered, and we have Linux today as an increasingly popular operating system.
It's all a matter of choice. They love their OS. They want to keep it going. Fine, more power to them! The more OSs, the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. I resent being forced to use any OS, be it Windows, Linux, BSD, OSX, or whatever. I like having the option to use what best fits my needs, or best fits what I'm doing.
But I just can't help getting the feeling that someting is missing from this story... it seems crazy that they would just sell the cards claiming them to have these features, and they wouldn't... at all. Would ATI really risk lawsuits and a bad image for that?
Sure they would, if they didn't think they'd get caught! Being nice, it might be a disconnect between the engineering/manufacturing and the Marketing division. IOW, "Our next boards will have to have HD on them." from engineering and marketing going "Our cards have HD compliance!"
As to reputation, ATI has had a mixed one for years. They were notorious for driver issues, and installing one of their "All-in-Wonder" cards was an exercise in frustration. The drivers supplied on the install CD wouldn't work. Then you'd download a revised driver set. Nope. Check again, and there'd be another revision. Eventually you'd give up and get an Nvidia card.
I've spent the past 5 years in areas where broadband was not available until recently. In the Southwest, there are areas where there is no telephone landline service, and some pretty good swaths of land where there is no electricity. In northern NY, here I live now, they just started rolling out DSL on a very limited basis.
It's hard for some of you to realize that the options you take for granted simply don't exist, and won't exist for some areas. I don't have a cell phone for the simple reason that there is no cell phone service here. There won't be for quite some time - environmental regulations. The cable companies here have no interest in offering anything more than basic and I do mean basic service! Yeah, you have to decide whether you're going to use cable, DSL, wireless, how much speed you want and how much you're going to pay. Some of us don't have those options at all. The options are satellite or paying for a T1 - and both are pretty damn expensive.
It's also been pointed out that many people don't feel the need for broadband. I know that's hard to imagine in this forum, but out in the Real World, it's true. Yes, I love broadband, and need it. I'm constantly downloading programs for trial/evaluation, CD ISOs for various OS distros, security patches, and browsing tech forums, and dial-up isn't going to cut it. But a lot of people don't do that. They check their e-mail, maybe browse a news or weather web site, an occasional search, and IM. You don't need broadband for that, dial-up works just fine. Yes, broadband makes all that nicer and faster, but it isn't a need.
The upshot is that until there's a real need at a reasonable price for the majority of people, you're not going to have universal broadband. Even then, remember there are an awful lot of people who don't need a computer! :D
Yes, I did read it. :) My apologies, I didn't mean it to seem that I was disagreeing, so much as amplifying from my own perspective. Guess I need to do better previews. :D
If Novell want people - especially corporate users - to move to their Linux distribution instead of using MacOS or MS Windows, then yes, identify the things that are blocking them, and then identify alternatives.
Good point, but the alternatives aren't always alternatives. If I have a choice of having to put together an entire suite of alternatives which may not have everything I need, combined with retraining all my user base, versus using a highly functional single program that has an existing trained user base, and easy-to-use UI, guess what I'm going to do? Particularly if that program is (like it or not) the industry standard program?
You have a some choices. 1) You persuade the software company to do a port to Linux. 2) You come up with a Linux app or a set of apps with all the functionality of the "standard" program, that has similar UI, and can interchange files with the standard. 3) You come up with a set of apps that has most of the features, and do your best to persuade people to use it, along with offering plenty of training. 4) You declare that the Linux apps are "good enough" and sneer at anyone who attempts to defend the standard program, and denigrate the program as "bloatware."
Which approach is likely to persuade people? 1&2 are the most likely to succeed, and three stands a pretty good chance. Unfortunately, I see a lot of posters here choosing #4.
Novell's done the Linux community a favor. Whether you use these applications or not (I don't), it gives us an idea of what still needs to be done to make Linux more popular. Like it or not, there is an application barrier. Businesses and people are not going to move away from Windows unless you have the applications they need, and you make it easy for them to do the move. This survey, and the suggestions are a start.
How about "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?" You've got the political upheaval, rebellion, and of course the potential really cool "bomb the Earth with rocks" sequence! Not to mention the intelligent computer!
I don't know about "Stranger in a Strange Land" - it really isn't something that I can see translating well to screen. "Revolt in 2100" might work better, or to really tick off the various religious groups - "Job, a comedy of errors."
It's funny that some of the posters here feel that the idea of "games" are new to military planning. If anything, games based on military maneuvers in war have been around since the beginning. What do you think chess is? It's a board representation of war. Not as we fight it today, but as it was fought.
The first quotes in the article give the wrong impression, really. No, any FPS is not like the real thing. I was pleased to see them mention "Marine Doom," since it was the first use of mods for an FPS in the military. But what it was for was to help practice maneuvers in small units. That is, to get soldiers to practice moving and working as a unit. Today, this is pretty much a feature of most FPS's - the networked "team" and "co-op" capabilities.
The idea in all training is to make it as realistic as possible, and to make (and correct) any mistakes there, not in the real thing. These games are an adjunct to that. It's a lot cheaper to go out and buy a couple of off-the-shelf games and consoles and run through some scenarios than it is to run it through in real life practices or massive simulators. They have their purpose as well, but the games give them a chance to make the "really stupid move!" at a much lower cost before they go to that point, and before they're in the real thing.
Doom was the first game that really blew me away, and I still have a copy of it that I play from time to time. What made it even better was that there were a host of different maps for it, so even when you got to the point of being bored with the original, there was always something new. It's nice to see that there's still ongoing development for it.
>The article just restates a problem that many others have seen with open-source projects: the geeks create all sort of shiny toys and efficient frameworks, but nobody actually bothers to test it for ease-of-use, or put a decent user-interface on top.
Actually, I see the problem in this case (and several others) as not so much that, as it is that if you leave geeks to their own devices, they'll work on what they want, never mind what they're supposed to. I've been guilty of this on occasion, as I'm sure many others have. The "ooh! shiny!" coding or app that you're playing with, instead of getting your principal job done. In the Real World, you get yanked back to reality by someone. In OSS, without strong leadership and a clear goal, you end up with an exercise in herding cats.
It's one of the things that hurts OSS. I can go out and proselytise all over, but you keep running into the "application barrier." The "Yes, we'd love to, but there are no applications for us." When you look, you find that there's no one interested in starting on it; there was a project that got dropped due to lack of interest by programmers; or it got forked off into something that isn't even close to what's needed. OTOH, closed source has a lot of options for them, unfortunately they all run on Windows. IOW, all the bright shiny "cool" stuff has OSS alternatives, while the prosaic, dull-but-necessary stuff often doesn't.
As I read this, what popped to mind was that they're acting like a union, but they don't want to call themselves a union. It's a sad commentary on unions that you have an organization negotiating with employers (or muscling them) for better pay, benefits, and working conditions for their employees, but it's "not a union."
It is a function of the industry maturing. The days when one or two people could sit down and turn out a killer game are pretty much gone - the technology has gotten too complex. It's also gotten to the point where the ability to hire the "young and foolish" is no longer a plus. The advanced skills needed are in the group of people who no longer feel like working 80+ hours a week.
I had user accounts on a Prime 400 and a VAX 11/750, but this was the first computer that was "mine". It was incredible, a "portable computer." You could put the keyboard up, a couple of snaps, and you could carry it around. OK, it weighed a ton, but still! Built-in monitor, a ton of bundled software, two disk drives, CPM, etc., etc.,etc.
I sometimes think back to that one when I sit trying to install some new word processing software that takes up more space on my hard drive and more RAM than before. Gee, I used to be able to do all of this on a computer with 64K of RAM, and off of a 360K floppy - and this new program does pretty much the same thing!
Exactly! Their mission is to make money. We're already seeing the erosion of the "social conscience," particularly regarding operations in other countries. From the stock reports, it looks like their stock is finally going to be moving downwards to be more in line with a normal P/E, and it'll be interesting to see how that affects their actions.
What has been bothering me about Google for a while is that no one there seems to be stopping to think about consequences and addressing them. More often I get the feeling that they're falling prey to the "This sooo cool! Let's release it!" syndrome, without anyone saying "Wait a minute..." The prime example is the Google Desktop adding in a "between computers" mode, which saves on Google's computers. Neat idea, but was it really needed? Did anyone there actually think beforehand about addressing obvious issues like privacy and security? Apparently not, judging from the flood of CYA statements out of them.
I'll trust Google to do web searches, show me maps, and search USENET archives. Anything else, they have to show me they deserve my trust, and so far they haven't done a good job.
I can't think of a single reason that the computers containing confidential information, personal medical records, and systems necessary for the day-to-day running of the hospital weren't on a stand-alone network in the first place.
Really? I can think of several right off the top of my head. Take a look at http://www.spheris.com/ or http://www.medquist.com/. These are just two of a number of companies that are out there, but they're among the biggest in their field.
There are a lot of healthcare organizations that use outsourced services for transcription, electronic document management, coding, even records storage. The answer to your question is that they would connect them to the Internet because that's the way they can get access to their charts, documents, and other information.
Microsoft software shouldn't be allowed in hospitals for the same reason pets aren't allowed in surgery rooms.
Nice - but do you know how little software for hospitals is available that doesn't require Windows? I'm serious. I know a lot of healthcare IT people who'd love to be able to move away from Windows, but you can't work with something that doesn't exist. Which is the state of OSS - and even the various closed *nix systems - in this area. Not enough applications.
A doctor who insists in having his MS-Windows computer connected to a critical hospital
That doesn't stop them from bringing in their own software disks. I spent a lot of time when I worked in a hospital IT setting, removing screensavers which took over all the workstation resources ("but it looked cool!"), AOL ("I wanted to check my e-mail") and various viruses ("I was working on this at home, and...") All of which was against hospital policy. The computers didn't even have modems, but that didn't stop them. These were all things that would have gotten a desk clerk fired in a heartbeat, but the most you could do to the doctors was to politely request that they not do it again.
A hospital that relies on a computer system that isn't secure enough cannot blame the crackers.
Absolutely you can blame the crackers! Just because I left my front door unlocked doesn't give you the right to walk into my house. Point out that I forgot to lock the door, fine. Anything else is not.
Yet another slashdot thread where everyone immediately starts screaming "Linux!" "BSD!" the second they hear the term "security breach". Of course, it'd be nice if there were actually a lot of applications for healthcare that run on those OSs - which there aren't. OSS is pretty thin on the ground when it comes to this field.
Why don't you look and see what's involved in hospital IT? I've been there, and it's a major headache for admins. You have administrators who don't really know much about computers and doctors who are frequently the biggest prima donnas in the world when it comes to getting what they want, in a corporate culture which caters to them.
Add in software developers who frequently have no clue as to what's actually needed, how to make a useable UI, and how information flows in a healthcare setting. But they have a hell of a sales pitch to the doctors and administrators, and you're the one who has to make it work.
Now try to secure it. Really! Wait until the first time Doctor X decides they're going to install their personal software on the workstation. Never mind that supposedly they're not allowed to do that - they'll do it anyways and then scream at you when you take it off. Take a wild guess as to who the hospital's going to back!
It's easy to blame the IT people, and the use of Windows, here. Wrong, but easy. They picked it up pretty quickly, and dealt with it. I'm sure they'd have loved to have more control, but unfortunately it's a question of what you're allowed to do, not what you want to do.
In a company where I was recruited, they had an IQ test and a programming test (SQL + general algorithms).
I had one of those companies try to recruit me about a decade ago. I wasn't looking for a job, but decided to check it out just out of curiousity. My interview was with the senior manager and one of the division directors. At the end of the interview, I was informed that I needed to take an "aptitude test." I couldn't believe it. They'd called me, not the other way around. They were recruiting me because of my skills, training, and experience - and they want me to take an aptitude test?! I turned down the job.
I could see doing this with a new person, right out of college or without experience. If you're recruiting experienced people, all you're going to do is antagonize them - particularly if you spring that requirement on them at the interview.
To the original question, about what you can do to leave a good impression with the unsuccessful candidates, I'll give the following tips:
1. Let them know they didn't get the job.
2. Tell them in a timely fashion. At the very least give them a time frame in which to expect your decision.
3. Let them know why (in a nice fashion) you decided not to hire them, and (if possible) what they could do to make themselves more attractive to your company in the future.
I've been on both sides of the desk - as an applicant, and as the one doing the hiring. One thing I made a decision was to try to never do the things that drove me nuts as an applicant, when I was the one doing the hiring. For the most part, I succeeded.
For once MS did something right. If only it removed Norton and installed AVG...
Well, it is still in beta! OTOH, isn't it weird to say something nice about MS? Just what is the current temperature in Hell right now?
But just think of the impact on the many computer techs whose livelihood depends on having a steady stream of Gateway computers entering their shops for repair! When Packard-Bell went under, Gateway was there to pick up the slack. Now, they'll just have to rely on HP Pavilions.
Tell your biggest customers that they're no longer your priority.
Biggest does not mean profitable. In this case, just the opposite. Every business, if they hope to stay in business, does this in some form or another. The service levels match the profitability of the customer. It's why you have to go through several levels of phone prompts and wait listening to muzak to get tech support, while a corporation with a big $ support contract gets someone on the phone immediately.
This is the problem with any "flat fee" system. The profit is from those who use the system the least, not those who use it the most. Rent a lot of DVD's, and you're not their best customer, you're their worst.
So what everyone is complaining about is that NetFlix is giving priority to their best customers, while stepping back service to their worst customers.
When you know the boss is going to be around, with reporters, why would you be playing a game on your computer? I'm sorry the guy lost his job, and yes, I think a reprimand would have been more appropriate, but still, he wasn't very bright.
No, but neither has sitting in my chair replaced those tasks. Instead it's become a choice, and many of the outlets available do both to give you that choice.
We also don't "laugh at our grandparents" for doing things with the available technology at the time, and I doubt our grandchildren will laugh at us for not using technology we don't have. Well, I hope not!
Yes, our grandchildren will be laughing at the idea, just as we're laughing about our grandparents' leaving their home to see a movie... oh, wait ... um, how about how we're laughing at our grandparents for buying a single song instead of an album ...err, wait ... Oh! We're laughing at at our grandparents for going to a grocery store to buy food instead of ... oh damn!
This strikes me as Version 2.0 of the ideas that were being hyped back in the '90's. Remember when the idea of physical locations to buy anything was being derided as "obsolete," soon to be replaced by web stores? No one would be buying anything at a store, we'd all be buying over the Internet. Yet somehow people still are going to stores, and most of the "web only" retail businesses from that era are gone. We still buy all sorts of "obsolete" things like books.
He seems to ignore that people actually like having having their hands on a physical medium. I want the disk, I want the case, and no, I don't want to be locked into always downloading it with all the attending hassles. So no, I don't think that our grandchildren are going to be laughing at us.
This is one of those ideas that always sees to get developed by someone with more enthusiasm than common sense. There's a CNN article about this, and one quote from it really stood out for me: "Despite the privacy concerns likely to be raised, Google executives are confident the product will appeal to many people wanting a way to use a home computer to hunt data stored on an office computer, or vice versa."
"Privacy concerns?" Something like this is going to be a nightmare to many corporations! Yes, now your employees can transfer work files to their home computers - and vice versa. Can you say "security hole?" Suuure you can! I can't imagine there are too many network admins out there who are going to want this anywhere in their system.
Even for a home user, what's the point? Really, if you need to move personal files between computers there are already easy methods of doing so. Home networks, CDs or even, if you're a bit daring, uploading it to the space that many ISP's give you for webspace, and downloading it from there! You even get to delete it. Letting a third party like Google have access to it, and store it strikes me as very scary. Thanks, but no thanks!
Let's see if I get this right. I'm going to pay more money for a DVD that I can only play in a player that will cost $1800. Yeah, right. Oh, and it may not end up being the generally acceptable format? Ooookay!
I've got a better idea! Why don't I just sit here and wait? That's right, I'm going to wait about five or so years. That way, the price will have dropped on the players, and the battle over formats will have settled out. I figure I can somehow struggle along without having seen the movies you're releasing in this format, probably because...well... I've already seen them.
This is yet another repetition of the past. A NEW! HOT! TECHNOLOGY! which is supposed to IMPROVE! our ENTERTAINMENT! EXPERIENCE!. Ok, fine. But.. um, we have a couple of different formats and the prices are enormous! Betamax/VHS. DVD/VHS. Players running around one to two grand. Been there, done that, got the t-shirts. What I've learned is that there's no rush. Wait. Prices will come down on players. Format types will standardize. You won't feel scre^H^H^H^Hvictimized by the manufacturers/retailers.
"What makes sense for today's IT infrastructures, with data growth showing no sign of slowing?"
Both really. Alright, it's really cool that they can now store up to 512 terabytes. But for many businesses, that storage capacity isn't needed - and won't be for a while. By the time they do need it, they'd be at the point of needing to replace the old system anyways.