arguing with pointy haired bosses that insisted on HP hardware that charged more annually for the 'license' to connect to their remote access consoles than I paid for support on other hardware.
It's about YOU. Even if she gets off after a lengthy and expensive trial, the next time you see a cop beating the shit out of someone you're going to turn away because you're a coward who doesn't want to get involved. Either that, or your're a terrorist and there are cameras on every stoplight.
I doubt that either of those two metrics are a good measure of the success of capitalism. For your second metric, the average human lifespan was around 40 years just a few hundred years ago, and now it's about 65. Still, that being the case I don't think that measures the success of capitalism.
For your first metric - 'working fewer hours', the question has to be asked 'of whom?'. You can choose to work fewer hours. Noone is forcing you to live up to standards and by means that cost enough that you must work 40 hours a week. You could live somewhere cheaper, but you choose not to.
I both disagree with the metrics you are choosing, and also disagreeing with the conclusions you've drawn from them. Both of them appear to be the exact opposite of your intended argument but I don't see how they relate to your conclusion either way.
The purpose and nature of capitalism is to expose inefficiencies. It's a system intended to work based on the self interest inherent in human nature. It is supposed to be resistant to corruption by being an essentially competitive system.
A more valid question would be - Capitalism is a success if it in general provides for a healthy competitive market which provides opportunities for invidividuals to succeed.
How you choose to succeed, again, is another facet of the system. If you want more leisure time, that's up to you to make work.
I guess the erosion here of any concept of respect for the individual begins at passing new laws with absurd consequences. It can be a misdemeanor to assault another individual on the street, but they propose that it be a felony to dare infringe upon the potential profit of the faceless would be corporate benefactor of your unwarranted and unlicensed viewing of some 'copywritten' content.
Oh if only that same blade cut both ways. Let it be a 'felony' for any corporate prick who got my personal info that I didn't specifically permit, or who used up my precious time with a phone call I didn't specifically authorize, or who sent me a pound of junk mail that I didn't ask for and won't use.
Perhaps this is just my own agitation, but I feel this is an egregious example of corporatism.
I just fired a client who insisted on monthly reboots of their linux boxes. (and mangled their udev, and insisted on using a vcd to boot single user because grub was 'dangerous'...)
I won't stop anyone from being stupid, but I am damned sure not going to do it for them.
What content? I've supported the desktop world for the entire existence of desktops. The whole landscape of 'content' as the term is misapplied here changes every 2 years or so. What exists today, will be forgotten tomorrow.
So how's this for funny. I just got a job at Apple - something I never thought I'd do. Even funnier though is that I'm using a mac, which is something I'd have put money on not doing. It runs UNIX, but moreso, it has put UNIX in the hands of the -least- technically motivated users, and done so with deftness.
So, I call bullshit on this. It can, and is being done. Just not done right, right now.
It's easy to be a skeptic and predict failure, and even easier for those who cannot or do not try to succeed.
18% seems like an awfully noninformative number. That is on the curve enough to cover legally blind people, the extra-chromosome set, and any other marginal population that probably also can't distinguish various other nuances.
I never use my real name. I don't claim any royalties, and that way I am not pursuable and my code is not claimable by any of my various employers who have various grasping IP clauses in my hiring contracts that range from offensive to absurd.
In almost every company I have worked for but one, the technology group did not share the business goals of the income groups. Most business people seem to see IT as a hurdle rather than leverage, and it seems most IT people see the business end as beggars rather than understanding the partnership.
The true breakdown of a lack of relationship is when business dictates solutions to IT rather than IT managing the decision process.
A working relationship is where business treats IT as a resource, and brings them in early as a consultative resource and ideas are shared openly and a solution reached via collaboration, engineering merit and business needs consideration.
Technology matrices, design groups and other initiatives are steps towards this, but the real key is communication, respect and orientation.
The cost of not doing it correctly is immense, with unsupportable and poorly chosen solutions that do not fit into a model slowly accreting into an environment which can't be managed or delivered. The cost of poor design is immense, but that is a lesson that's generally not learned for a year after the bad decisions have been made.
So much money flows into the hands of vendors and consultants who deliver something and then scramble, leaving these short term solutions in a long term situation. The toughest challenge in IT is to change this tradition.
Heck, this would eliminate most IT management.
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
The reality of the situation is pretty bleak on both fronts. There is all sorts of bad IT management going on, and ignorance of the subject is just one facet. If I were to pick an underqualification, ignorance is probably the least harmful of the many I have endured.
The worst by far is sucking vendor peepee. The 'Managers' and 'Directors' who obtain their direction by meeting with a vendor whenever they have a major project, leading to product focus rather than problem focus on every issue.
That is followed closely by the "Working Manager" who got promoted into a position of management while retaining all of their prior obligations, leaving them neither the experience or the time to properly attend to their job as a manager.
Worse, they then become a technical authority rather than what they should be as a mentor and manager. Staff meetings devolve into decisions being made by them for things that should be outside their focus. It's really the worst of both worlds.
I have had ignorant managers who are completely hands off, and really that was a fairly pleasant operating environment. So long as I had visibility in the Execusphere and could sell my own ideas, it was all good.
Here's the problem though. If we fired all the IT management who are incompetent, we'd have to hire more. Do you want to interview them? Me either. How about we just continue to work around the pointy haired bosses, the way we are doing already.
Having been in the field now for 20 years, I've met all manner of IT people, and interviewed thousands. Several of my interview questions were designed to try and test the interviewee's character and drew on hypothetical situations that I have been faced with in the IT field.
I know that 88% of my coworkers, mentors and affiliates do not bother to violate the trust of the environments that I have worked in.
This is FUD - intended to generate an environment of fear to motivate potential clients. It's destabilizing propaganda and dishonest.
I take personal offense at this, being that this is my field and this encompasses most of the people I call my friends and have known and admired in my professional life.
Considering the difficulties and often long hours of the job, it's a serious injury on top of insult to have some vendor-slash-consultant-slash-propagandist snake oil peddlers call us criminals too.
I'll make a counter assertion. 88% of all consultants whose assessments determine if you need their services are lying assholes.
How long before someone implants one of these embryos into a viable animal that can host a fetus? I need a citation, but I understand that pigs are considered very 'close' to us in terms of metabolism.
If you grafted a gene that would theoretically improve viability, wouldn't you be excited to see if it would develop?
Human nature being what it is, I have a hard time believing that they really destroyed these embryos as quickly as they are claiming.
> I'd ask anyone outside our borders who actually cares to forgive the average > Canadian - we currently don't have a viable center or right-of-center party > for whom to vote. Ostriches on the left, and book-burning, bible-thumping > fanatics on the right.
Hey it's not that much different for americans.
We have the right, rallying around the banner of the extreme right and banning abortion (even in mother-endangerment cases), putting creationism into schools, giving parents tax rebates for sending kids to 'private' (read church) schools and trying to undermind social security and welfare while at the same time engaging us in dubious wars while taking away benefits for miltary retirees and veterans.
And then we have the left, which is divided evenly between the granola bowl (flakes, nuts and fruits). We've already put a right-winger into the office against the popular vote by having the 'liberal' party spitefully divide their vote up.
Things are pretty frustrating down south too. It seems like the thoughtful moderate doesn't go into public office anymore, or at least they don't get superfunded by the special interests which control US politics.
On linux hosts that have to be hot-side connected (internet), I feel reasonably secure that I can aggressively and completely lock down all listening ports and keep them that way.
Further, I can take a daemon which must run, and give it a gid/uid so that any compromise of that daemon will contain it into that daemon's areas of access.
perhaps this is merely lack of familiarity with platform, but I've never felt that windows was transparent enough to have confidence in the security. I've never felt that making something MORE complicated made it more secure, and that seems to be the case with windows. If you want it more secure, add more new patches (which is a vector in itself), or more 3rd party products.
I do feel like an architecture comparison is valid here.
Everything else in the movie, I've read, was to show the horrors of war - the scouring of the shire was the point of the books.
WWII Vets returning from a defeated germany, exhausted and devastated with loss and grief came home to an england transformed by the realities of war from a quaint parochial burb into an industrial nation scarred with firebombings and terror from the V2 rockets.
The lesson here is that you cannot go to war to protect innocence, and you can't go home.
This vaguely reminds me of the 'copy protection' that one has to surmount just to get software one pays for to work properly (i.e. Securerom cd's on my 72x cdrom drive).
Now I am an msn messenger user who is probably going to have to install some sort of workaround to use the service legitimately because it erroneously detects something it doesn't like. I wonder if I am breaking the DMCA now.
I am a follower of the church of technology that believes that enlightenment and ultimately ascension will come from technology.
Mankind will someday break the bounds of this rock. We will someday find and teach, and learn from other life. We will do all these things, or our lives, all our lives will never have mattered because we will simply cease to exist with no record, trace or impact.
Slashdot Mirror
arguing with pointy haired bosses that insisted on HP hardware that charged more annually for the 'license' to connect to their remote access consoles than I paid for support on other hardware.
Good riddance.
To my former employer, "I told you so."
... for having to use vsphere for this.
A true hacker would have used the VMWare sdk and command line tools and had a VM that later deleted itself perform this act.
Amateur.
It's about YOU. Even if she gets off after a lengthy and expensive trial, the next time you see a cop beating the shit out of someone you're going to turn away because you're a coward who doesn't want to get involved. Either that, or your're a terrorist and there are cameras on every stoplight.
This is horrible but I can't stop smiling. What is wrong with me?
I doubt that either of those two metrics are a good measure of the success of capitalism. For your second metric, the average human lifespan was around 40 years just a few hundred years ago, and now it's about 65. Still, that being the case I don't think that measures the success of capitalism.
For your first metric - 'working fewer hours', the question has to be asked 'of whom?'. You can choose to work fewer hours. Noone is forcing you to live up to standards and by means that cost enough that you must work 40 hours a week. You could live somewhere cheaper, but you choose not to.
I both disagree with the metrics you are choosing, and also disagreeing with the conclusions you've drawn from them. Both of them appear to be the exact opposite of your intended argument but I don't see how they relate to your conclusion either way.
The purpose and nature of capitalism is to expose inefficiencies. It's a system intended to work based on the self interest inherent in human nature. It is supposed to be resistant to corruption by being an essentially competitive system.
A more valid question would be - Capitalism is a success if it in general provides for a healthy competitive market which provides opportunities for invidividuals to succeed.
How you choose to succeed, again, is another facet of the system. If you want more leisure time, that's up to you to make work.
or their kids will see a similar story about smugglers and their unregulated spacecraft.
"this ship, nicknamed the Falcon after an obscure science fiction reference, was discovered hidden in orbit on the dark side of the moon..."
A 'felony'.
I guess the erosion here of any concept of respect for the individual begins at passing new laws with absurd consequences. It can be a misdemeanor to assault another individual on the street, but they propose that it be a felony to dare infringe upon the potential profit of the faceless would be corporate benefactor of your unwarranted and unlicensed viewing of some 'copywritten' content.
Oh if only that same blade cut both ways. Let it be a 'felony' for any corporate prick who got my personal info that I didn't specifically permit, or who used up my precious time with a phone call I didn't specifically authorize, or who sent me a pound of junk mail that I didn't ask for and won't use.
Perhaps this is just my own agitation, but I feel this is an egregious example of corporatism.
Sometimes it's not hardware.
I just terminated a contract where the client insisted on mounting their SAN volumes in a way that made booting fail about half the time.
They had no idea what they were doing, but insisted on doing it in a bad/broken way and were more interested in posturing than solving problems.
My laziness contributes to my success. Everything I do is intended as an investment in doing less in the future.
I will work pretty smart to lower my work hard factors (and work late, and work weekends, and work stressfully...)
I just fired a client who insisted on monthly reboots of their linux boxes. (and mangled their udev, and insisted on using a vcd to boot single user because grub was 'dangerous' ...)
I won't stop anyone from being stupid, but I am damned sure not going to do it for them.
What content? I've supported the desktop world for the entire existence of desktops. The whole landscape of 'content' as the term is misapplied here changes every 2 years or so. What exists today, will be forgotten tomorrow.
So how's this for funny. I just got a job at Apple - something I never thought I'd do. Even funnier though is that I'm using a mac, which is something I'd have put money on not doing. It runs UNIX, but moreso, it has put UNIX in the hands of the -least- technically motivated users, and done so with deftness.
So, I call bullshit on this. It can, and is being done. Just not done right, right now.
It's easy to be a skeptic and predict failure, and even easier for those who cannot or do not try to succeed.
...will the life we create in the laboratory believe in us?
18% seems like an awfully noninformative number. That is on the curve enough to cover legally blind people, the extra-chromosome set, and any other marginal population that probably also can't distinguish various other nuances.
I never use my real name. I don't claim any royalties, and that way I am not pursuable and my code is not claimable by any of my various employers who have various grasping IP clauses in my hiring contracts that range from offensive to absurd.
In almost every company I have worked for but one, the technology group did not share the business goals of the income groups. Most business people seem to see IT as a hurdle rather than leverage, and it seems most IT people see the business end as beggars rather than understanding the partnership.
The true breakdown of a lack of relationship is when business dictates solutions to IT rather than IT managing the decision process.
A working relationship is where business treats IT as a resource, and brings them in early as a consultative resource and ideas are shared openly and a solution reached via collaboration, engineering merit and business needs consideration.
Technology matrices, design groups and other initiatives are steps towards this, but the real key is communication, respect and orientation.
The cost of not doing it correctly is immense, with unsupportable and poorly chosen solutions that do not fit into a model slowly accreting into an environment which can't be managed or delivered. The cost of poor design is immense, but that is a lesson that's generally not learned for a year after the bad decisions have been made.
So much money flows into the hands of vendors and consultants who deliver something and then scramble, leaving these short term solutions in a long term situation. The toughest challenge in IT is to change this tradition.
The reality of the situation is pretty bleak on both fronts. There is all sorts of bad IT management going on, and ignorance of the subject is just one facet. If I were to pick an underqualification, ignorance is probably the least harmful of the many I have endured.
The worst by far is sucking vendor peepee. The 'Managers' and 'Directors' who obtain their direction by meeting with a vendor whenever they have a major project, leading to product focus rather than problem focus on every issue.
That is followed closely by the "Working Manager" who got promoted into a position of management while retaining all of their prior obligations, leaving them neither the experience or the time to properly attend to their job as a manager.
Worse, they then become a technical authority rather than what they should be as a mentor and manager. Staff meetings devolve into decisions being made by them for things that should be outside their focus. It's really the worst of both worlds.
I have had ignorant managers who are completely hands off, and really that was a fairly pleasant operating environment. So long as I had visibility in the Execusphere and could sell my own ideas, it was all good.
Here's the problem though. If we fired all the IT management who are incompetent, we'd have to hire more. Do you want to interview them? Me either. How about we just continue to work around the pointy haired bosses, the way we are doing already.
It's just the way of things, apparently.
Having been in the field now for 20 years, I've met all manner of IT people, and interviewed thousands. Several of my interview questions were designed to try and test the interviewee's character and drew on hypothetical situations that I have been faced with in the IT field.
I know that 88% of my coworkers, mentors and affiliates do not bother to violate the trust of the environments that I have worked in.
This is FUD - intended to generate an environment of fear to motivate potential clients. It's destabilizing propaganda and dishonest.
I take personal offense at this, being that this is my field and this encompasses most of the people I call my friends and have known and admired in my professional life.
Considering the difficulties and often long hours of the job, it's a serious injury on top of insult to have some vendor-slash-consultant-slash-propagandist snake oil peddlers call us criminals too.
I'll make a counter assertion. 88% of all consultants whose assessments determine if you need their services are lying assholes.
How long before someone implants one of these embryos into a viable animal that can host a fetus? I need a citation, but I understand that pigs are considered very 'close' to us in terms of metabolism.
If you grafted a gene that would theoretically improve viability, wouldn't you be excited to see if it would develop?
Human nature being what it is, I have a hard time believing that they really destroyed these embryos as quickly as they are claiming.
> I'd ask anyone outside our borders who actually cares to forgive the average
> Canadian - we currently don't have a viable center or right-of-center party
> for whom to vote. Ostriches on the left, and book-burning, bible-thumping
> fanatics on the right.
Hey it's not that much different for americans.
We have the right, rallying around the banner of the extreme right and banning abortion (even in mother-endangerment cases), putting creationism into schools, giving parents tax rebates for sending kids to 'private' (read church) schools and trying to undermind social security and welfare while at the same time engaging us in dubious wars while taking away benefits for miltary retirees and veterans.
And then we have the left, which is divided evenly between the granola bowl (flakes, nuts and fruits). We've already put a right-winger into the office against the popular vote by having the 'liberal' party spitefully divide their vote up.
Things are pretty frustrating down south too. It seems like the thoughtful moderate doesn't go into public office anymore, or at least they don't get superfunded by the special interests which control US politics.
well I don't know about this.
On linux hosts that have to be hot-side connected (internet), I feel reasonably secure that I can aggressively and completely lock down all listening ports and keep them that way.
Further, I can take a daemon which must run, and give it a gid/uid so that any compromise of that daemon will contain it into that daemon's areas of access.
perhaps this is merely lack of familiarity with platform, but I've never felt that windows was transparent enough to have confidence in the security. I've never felt that making something MORE complicated made it more secure, and that seems to be the case with windows. If you want it more secure, add more new patches (which is a vector in itself), or more 3rd party products.
I do feel like an architecture comparison is valid here.
- nox
Of the whole movie.
Everything else in the movie, I've read, was to show the horrors of war - the scouring of the shire was the point of the books.
WWII Vets returning from a defeated germany, exhausted and devastated with loss and grief came home to an england transformed by the realities of war from a quaint parochial burb into an industrial nation scarred with firebombings and terror from the V2 rockets.
The lesson here is that you cannot go to war to protect innocence, and you can't go home.
my msn messenger cannot log in.
This vaguely reminds me of the 'copy protection' that one has to surmount just to get software one pays for to work properly (i.e. Securerom cd's on my 72x cdrom drive).
Now I am an msn messenger user who is probably going to have to install some sort of workaround to use the service legitimately because it erroneously detects something it doesn't like. I wonder if I am breaking the DMCA now.
- nox
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's one of those SA things.
cyberbuff indeed.
I am a follower of the church of technology that believes that enlightenment and ultimately ascension will come from technology.
Mankind will someday break the bounds of this rock. We will someday find and teach, and learn from other life. We will do all these things, or our lives, all our lives will never have mattered because we will simply cease to exist with no record, trace or impact.
cyberbuff my ass.
If they are suing already, doesn't that invalidate the patent by demonstrating prior art before the patent was applied for?