1. Take a job. It may not be your ideal job, but it shows that you aren't afraid of work 2. Learn about the company. 3. Learn what the company needs. 4. Be responsible - if something breaks, offer to fix it. 5. Be proactive - if you see a way of doing something better, suggest it. 6. Be motivated - if you see job functions that you would rather do, volunteer. 7. Be flexible - if your boss asks you to perform a task that you don't enjoy, do it anyways - you may discover that he's simply testing you to see how flexible you really are.
During this time frame, CONTINUE to look for your ideal job. When you find it, take it. You now have INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE. It may not be programming / security / database / whatever specific experience, but it is work experience. This, COUPLED WITH YOUR DEGREE, will help you to get the job that you want.
If you lack motivation, are inflexible, and / or have unrealistic expectations, you will not go far in ANY career choice that you make.
The person in the original uses English as a second language. You cannot properly interpret a message without taking into consideration the origin of the poster. To do otherwise is simply myopic.
I have worked for half a dozen companies over the last 18 years or so. In my experience, I've seen a great number of entry-level positions made available to people in IT. Generally, they involve support desk / help desk type work. This is typical. In that help desk role, you learn about the company. You learn about the environment. You learn the systems that you eventually hope to help develop. There's not course that will teach you about the specifics of company X.
You learn what the company does, and you learn how the company does it. ONLY THEN can you develop an understanding of what you could do to help the company to do it better. This is the reason that many large organizations with in-house IT departments hire at tier one and promote from within. They are showing faith in you, by paying you to learn what they do and how they do it.
When they discover that they require a new skill set that they haven't had any experience with (thus no tier to promote from) they must go outside to fill that role. THAT is the point at which they say "we need someone with experience". They don't have a progression in place for that skill set, so you need to be able to hit the ground running and introduce that skillset to the team.
Unfortunately, if you continue to hold out for the "perfect" job (sometimes without realizing that you DON'T have the skills required for it) eventually companies are going to suspect that there is a reason that you have no experience. After all, why wouldn't you have a job? As a prospective employer, I'd rather hear you say, "I'm currently working in a support environment, brushing up on my "insert favorite technology here". It's a good job, but I'd be happier and more productive working for your company in this role". It sounds better than "I don't have a job because the perfect role didn't land in my lap".
They give us pencils up here in Canada. We don't punch holes, we place an "X" in the box for the candidate that we choose.
If you "X" covers more than one box, your vote is considered spoiled, and therefor not counted. The boxes are large enough (about 1/2" square) that an X will fit comfortably inside.
You are mistaken. When it comes to elections - whether they are in Mexico or in the USofA, we are ALL Americans. Your decisions affect us. Our decisions affect you.
Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to the theme of the original poster, as I believe that he was trying to help you to understand that very point.
You seem to be restricting the term "American" to refer ONLY to those from the "United States of America", and discounting the millions of people from other parts of North, Central, and South America.
Believe it or not, you are not alone on this planet, nor are you alone in the Americas.
I will concede that many things shift that should not, and many things do not shift that might do well to. I also concede that my examples (after being re-read on a little sleep) were, in fact, indicitive of privacy issues, rather than censorship. I am swayed (at least partially) by your arguments, but remain an advocate of SOME FORM of censorship.
We go through life believeing that laws protect citizens from citizens. But then we discover government coverups. I find this form of censorship to be quite disquieting. When my government is unwilling to provide a detailed account of spending, or when my government is not willing to explain it's stance in a police action, my belief in censorship fails. Sadly, where the government is involved, there's a good chance that censorship is a bad thing. And yet, we rely on the government to mete censorship. A sad dichotomy.
But, some censorship is as simple as "common decency" - which one would hope to be self regulatory. While we laud the media for exposing government coverups, we also encourage the media to bring us stories of murder and corruption on our streets (complete with videos and photographs). I don't understand this at all. Perhaps it makes one feel better about oneself - knowing that "at least I didn't kill anyone"...
Other forms of censorship serve to shield children (and most adults) from the horrors of the world. But, there are differing views on what "horror" is. For some, the graphic depictions of war are too much. For others, this is a fact of life that should not be swept under the rug. For some, the graphic depictions of sexual deviance will cause trauma. For others, it may not. And yes, "deviance" is subjective. (For the sake of this post, we will assume that "normal" includes one willing adult partner pair. I can't even imagine the scope of deviance - I'm sure that examples could fill tomes.)
Perhaps we could wrest control from the government (which is SUPPOSED to be "of the people, by the people, for the people") and provide a censoring body that is in line with what society "can handle". I do not know the solution. I do agree with you that the power to control what you see is dangerous. But I also agree that there should be a point at which you need to take responsibility to get the information that is "filtered" for the general populace. Call it a two prong approach to censorship. It wouldn't be unlike the moderator system that it's in place in the motion picture industry. If it's rating suggests that the material is for adults only, it should be rated R, and you should have to DO something to gain access to that additional information.
It is my belief that you cannot have privacy without some degree of censorship.
While you have sole control over information about you, you are 100% correct. As soon as someone else has control of your information, censorship is what protects you. Call it privacy if you wish, but it is censorship that prevents someone else from gaining access to that data.
You state that Censorship is an act of coercion delivered by a force from with to which you have not agreed. I suggest that MOST censorhip is not an act of coercion, but rather an adherence to the guidelines recommended by society. If what you seek exists outside of what society deems to be acceptable, you are forced to seek an alternate method of acquiring it.
You accept it for setting the legal age of alcohol consumption, you accept it for setting the legal age of consent, you accept it for a myriad of other societal guidelines and laws. Yet you balk at this same mechanism when censorship is mentioned.
I guess that this will depend on the country in question...
In Canada: PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
In the UK: THE COMMON LAW RIGHT OF CONFIDENCE
I'm not up on the US system, but here's a quote from the American Medical Association website:
The AMA's ethical guidelines are not binding by law, although courts have used ethical obligations as the basis for imposing legal obligations. Moreover, maintaining patient confidentiality is a legal duty as well as an ethical duty. A physician's legal obligations are defined by the US Constitution, by federal and state laws and regulations, and by the courts. Even without applying ethical standards, courts generally allow a cause of action for a breach of confidentiality against a treating physician who divulges confidential medical information without proper authorization from the patient.
Sadly, you've offered little information to support your claim.
You state "There can be no legitimate justification for it.", but I beg to differ. Rather than ask you to prove your statement, I will merely offer examples of what "I" believe to be "legitimate" justification.
Example A:
Subject suffers from a kidney disease. A result of this condition is a bed wetting problem. Currently, there is a law that protects the subject from ridicule by preventing this information from being made public. As an aside, there is nothing to prevent the subject from distributing this information. In this case, censorship protects the subject, unless the subject wilfully gives up that right.
Example B:
Subject is the target of an abusive relationship. Subject wishes to leave the relationship and move to a safer environment. To keep the example simple, there are no children involved in this relationship. Subject wishes to start life anew, but does not wish to leave self open to abuse from former abuser. Currently, there are laws that allow you a certain amount of privacy. Unlisted telephone lines, etc. In this case, censorship protects the subject, unless the subject wilfully gives up that right.
I am certain that there are many other examples that you would accept as reasonable. You do not wish members of the general public to get their hands on your SSN/SIN/government number. The law that protects this information is a form of censorship.
Censorship protects the rights and privilages of average citizens. Unfortunately, there are parties that would have you believe that NO information should be safe, that you do NOT have the right to privacy.
I would recommend that people take a moment to understand the banality of your statement. It's like saying being human is a societal cancer. We continue to live and breath, and mostly play our roles responsibly. Sure, there will always be another nut around the corner trying to trample your rights, or abuse the system in one fashion or another, some things are simply there to protect us.
No, I'm not bad at diagnosis. In fact, I am *NIX analyst (Solaris and RedHat), and I am very good at I do.
I, too, once held that pompous attitude - diagnosis is a breeze. Well, for some things, that may be true. When you are up to your elbows in a 6900, you learn to respect that some things take longer. Hardware diagnosis on a home PC is relatively simple. Am I seeing errors, do I have adequate power, etc.
This is not the same as software diagnosis. In the *NIX world, I can see everything that I need to know about an application that is running in an errant state (or not running). In the wintel world, this is complicated by the OS attempting to hide this information from me. Introduce a virus (as is want to happen when you have a family), and the amount of time to diagnose software related problems increases.
When the software on my HOME computer breaks, I reinstall Windows. It's simply faster that way.
As for the "your user is just going to re-install it anyways" comment? I'm not worried. It was either me, or it was my son. No, I don't lock my game system down to prevent him from tampering with it. I'd rather he have the opportunity to fix it (or realy mess it up) himself. Besides, it's less than an hour from dead OS to fragging in UT2K4.
In many cases, the actual amount of time required looks like this:
Time to rebuild from scratch is less than 4 hours.
Time to discover root cause is greater than 4 hours.
Each method has it's good points, each it's bad. When it was just me, and I had hours to devote to discovery, that's the root that I chose. Now, with my son, girlfriend, house repairs, etc., it just doesn't make sense to invest that much time in discovery. Besides, it's not like my Win gaming computer is an HA server.
In many cases, the actual amount of time required looks like this: Time to rebuild from scratch 4 hours.
Each method has it's good points, each it's bad. When it was just me, and I had hours to devote to discovery, that's the root that I chose. Now, with my son, girlfriend, house repairs, etc., it just doesn't make sense to invest that much time in discovery. Besides, it's not like my Win gaming computer is an HA server.
I think that you've stumbled onto an excellent idea there... Game police. Where do I sign up?
I think that ultimately, I agree that if you make a living off of a game, you should pay taxes. Anything that EVENLY distributes the tax base is a good idea.
You realize, of course, that this isn't unusual, right?
If you bought a home in the 1920's in a rural area with 0 property tax, and now a city has grown around you, you are now expected to pay property tax. NOT at the cost that you bought it for, but at it's potential resale value.
The belief is, that you are using the same services as your neighbours. Access to street cleaning, garbage removal, sewage services, etc. YOU may not have chosen for the city to grow around you, but you have no recourse.
This is one example. If you spend a few minutes, you will find countless other examples of taxation that occurs whether you spend the money today or not.
I've read the article (oh my!). It makes sense. If it were not possible to buy / sell their currency, it would not be taxable. Plain and simple.
Telix... Now there's a blast from the past... I don't recall requiring seperate software for file transfers though... that's what the zmodem, xmodem, sealink, etc. were for.
I didn't go in for the chat thing much, but I do seem to remember grabbing a dozen different versions of the magik screen saver...
We mostly used it as a client to access various vendors sites to download drivers (scsi drivers, video drivers, hdd info (some disks didn't print the number of heads/cylinders etc. on them)...
Sure, things were more simple back then, but we spent a lot in long distance charges trying to grab the latest drivers. After a couple of years of downloading drivers and games and utilities and whatnot, we mucked with hosting our own Telix based bbs. It didn't last long - slip/ppp and mosaic changed the landscape.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your statement "an ISP's primary purpose is not the distribution of other people's personal information".
For the average home user, an ISP is the ONLY way that they can distribute their personal information, as a "home page" is generally provided without additional cost. It is up to the user to determine what information is posted, but the service is made available by the ISP.
I do agree that Jigsaw is EXPLICITLY offering this specific service, while an ISP offers a veritable plethora of services in comparison.
Incidentally, refusing to participate in a relationship is not harassment. It is merely antisocial.
Forcing him to participate in a relationship that he doesn't feel comfortable in would be harassment.
There was a time when companies kept antisocial employees "in the back room" or away from customers. As our workplace evolves, there is less room for people with behavioural quirks such as this. Eventually, he will likely find himself out of work and will have difficulty finding employment in his field, as the majority of tech-recruiters are female.
While I wouldn't hire a person with this type of behavioural anomaly, it's unfair to force him to adopt a social stance. He requires counseling, not insults.
He's indicated that the backup occurs every night, not realtime. So, he's got a couple of hours to scp the file back. Having said that, I'd hope that he'd use some form of revision control - like sccs or cvs - just in case.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to misunderstand the gist of my post.
1. Take a job. It may not be your ideal job, but it shows that you aren't afraid of work
2. Learn about the company.
3. Learn what the company needs.
4. Be responsible - if something breaks, offer to fix it.
5. Be proactive - if you see a way of doing something better, suggest it.
6. Be motivated - if you see job functions that you would rather do, volunteer.
7. Be flexible - if your boss asks you to perform a task that you don't enjoy, do it anyways - you may discover that he's simply testing you to see how flexible you really are.
During this time frame, CONTINUE to look for your ideal job. When you find it, take it. You now have INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE. It may not be programming / security / database / whatever specific experience, but it is work experience. This, COUPLED WITH YOUR DEGREE, will help you to get the job that you want.
If you lack motivation, are inflexible, and / or have unrealistic expectations, you will not go far in ANY career choice that you make.
The person in the original uses English as a second language. You cannot properly interpret a message without taking into consideration the origin of the poster. To do otherwise is simply myopic.
Sadly, it's a double-edged sword.
I have worked for half a dozen companies over the last 18 years or so. In my experience, I've seen a great number of entry-level positions made available to people in IT. Generally, they involve support desk / help desk type work. This is typical. In that help desk role, you learn about the company. You learn about the environment. You learn the systems that you eventually hope to help develop. There's not course that will teach you about the specifics of company X.
You learn what the company does, and you learn how the company does it. ONLY THEN can you develop an understanding of what you could do to help the company to do it better. This is the reason that many large organizations with in-house IT departments hire at tier one and promote from within. They are showing faith in you, by paying you to learn what they do and how they do it.
When they discover that they require a new skill set that they haven't had any experience with (thus no tier to promote from) they must go outside to fill that role. THAT is the point at which they say "we need someone with experience". They don't have a progression in place for that skill set, so you need to be able to hit the ground running and introduce that skillset to the team.
Unfortunately, if you continue to hold out for the "perfect" job (sometimes without realizing that you DON'T have the skills required for it) eventually companies are going to suspect that there is a reason that you have no experience. After all, why wouldn't you have a job? As a prospective employer, I'd rather hear you say, "I'm currently working in a support environment, brushing up on my "insert favorite technology here". It's a good job, but I'd be happier and more productive working for your company in this role". It sounds better than "I don't have a job because the perfect role didn't land in my lap".
Know what I mean?
What, no grits?
I agree that the tags aren't as useful as one would expect. It would be more useful if they were SUBJECT tags, rather than "SUBJECTIVE" tags.
They give us pencils up here in Canada. We don't punch holes, we place an "X" in the box for the candidate that we choose.
If you "X" covers more than one box, your vote is considered spoiled, and therefor not counted. The boxes are large enough (about 1/2" square) that an X will fit comfortably inside.
And it works for us.
You are mistaken. When it comes to elections - whether they are in Mexico or in the USofA, we are ALL Americans. Your decisions affect us. Our decisions affect you.
Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to the theme of the original poster, as I believe that he was trying to help you to understand that very point.
Or the other way around...
You seem to be restricting the term "American" to refer ONLY to those from the "United States of America", and discounting the millions of people from other parts of North, Central, and South America.
Believe it or not, you are not alone on this planet, nor are you alone in the Americas.
I will concede that many things shift that should not, and many things do not shift that might do well to. I also concede that my examples (after being re-read on a little sleep) were, in fact, indicitive of privacy issues, rather than censorship. I am swayed (at least partially) by your arguments, but remain an advocate of SOME FORM of censorship.
We go through life believeing that laws protect citizens from citizens. But then we discover government coverups. I find this form of censorship to be quite disquieting. When my government is unwilling to provide a detailed account of spending, or when my government is not willing to explain it's stance in a police action, my belief in censorship fails. Sadly, where the government is involved, there's a good chance that censorship is a bad thing. And yet, we rely on the government to mete censorship. A sad dichotomy.
But, some censorship is as simple as "common decency" - which one would hope to be self regulatory. While we laud the media for exposing government coverups, we also encourage the media to bring us stories of murder and corruption on our streets (complete with videos and photographs). I don't understand this at all. Perhaps it makes one feel better about oneself - knowing that "at least I didn't kill anyone"...
Other forms of censorship serve to shield children (and most adults) from the horrors of the world. But, there are differing views on what "horror" is. For some, the graphic depictions of war are too much. For others, this is a fact of life that should not be swept under the rug. For some, the graphic depictions of sexual deviance will cause trauma. For others, it may not. And yes, "deviance" is subjective. (For the sake of this post, we will assume that "normal" includes one willing adult partner pair. I can't even imagine the scope of deviance - I'm sure that examples could fill tomes.)
Perhaps we could wrest control from the government (which is SUPPOSED to be "of the people, by the people, for the people") and provide a censoring body that is in line with what society "can handle". I do not know the solution. I do agree with you that the power to control what you see is dangerous. But I also agree that there should be a point at which you need to take responsibility to get the information that is "filtered" for the general populace. Call it a two prong approach to censorship. It wouldn't be unlike the moderator system that it's in place in the motion picture industry. If it's rating suggests that the material is for adults only, it should be rated R, and you should have to DO something to gain access to that additional information.
But, ultimately, I just don't know the answer.
My appologies. I merely assumed that you would find societal norms to be acceptable.
It is my belief that you cannot have privacy without some degree of censorship.
While you have sole control over information about you, you are 100% correct.
As soon as someone else has control of your information, censorship is what protects you. Call it privacy if you wish, but it is censorship that prevents someone else from gaining access to that data.
You state that Censorship is an act of coercion delivered by a force from with to which you have not agreed. I suggest that MOST censorhip is not an act of coercion, but rather an adherence to the guidelines recommended by society. If what you seek exists outside of what society deems to be acceptable, you are forced to seek an alternate method of acquiring it.
You accept it for setting the legal age of alcohol consumption, you accept it for setting the legal age of consent, you accept it for a myriad of other societal guidelines and laws. Yet you balk at this same mechanism when censorship is mentioned.
I find that interesting.
In Canada:
PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ACT
In the UK:
THE COMMON LAW RIGHT OF CONFIDENCE
I'm not up on the US system, but here's a quote from the American Medical Association website:
Sadly, you've offered little information to support your claim.
You state "There can be no legitimate justification for it.", but I beg to differ. Rather than ask you to prove your statement, I will merely offer examples of what "I" believe to be "legitimate" justification.
Subject suffers from a kidney disease. A result of this condition is a bed wetting problem. Currently, there is a law that protects the subject from ridicule by preventing this information from being made public. As an aside, there is nothing to prevent the subject from distributing this information. In this case, censorship protects the subject, unless the subject wilfully gives up that right.
- Example B:
I am certain that there are many other examples that you would accept as reasonable. You do not wish members of the general public to get their hands on your SSN/SIN/government number. The law that protects this information is a form of censorship.Subject is the target of an abusive relationship. Subject wishes to leave the relationship and move to a safer environment. To keep the example simple, there are no children involved in this relationship. Subject wishes to start life anew, but does not wish to leave self open to abuse from former abuser. Currently, there are laws that allow you a certain amount of privacy. Unlisted telephone lines, etc. In this case, censorship protects the subject, unless the subject wilfully gives up that right.
Censorship protects the rights and privilages of average citizens. Unfortunately, there are parties that would have you believe that NO information should be safe, that you do NOT have the right to privacy.
I would recommend that people take a moment to understand the banality of your statement. It's like saying being human is a societal cancer. We continue to live and breath, and mostly play our roles responsibly. Sure, there will always be another nut around the corner trying to trample your rights, or abuse the system in one fashion or another, some things are simply there to protect us.
No, I'm not bad at diagnosis. In fact, I am *NIX analyst (Solaris and RedHat), and I am very good at I do.
I, too, once held that pompous attitude - diagnosis is a breeze. Well, for some things, that may be true. When you are up to your elbows in a 6900, you learn to respect that some things take longer. Hardware diagnosis on a home PC is relatively simple. Am I seeing errors, do I have adequate power, etc.
This is not the same as software diagnosis. In the *NIX world, I can see everything that I need to know about an application that is running in an errant state (or not running). In the wintel world, this is complicated by the OS attempting to hide this information from me. Introduce a virus (as is want to happen when you have a family), and the amount of time to diagnose software related problems increases.
When the software on my HOME computer breaks, I reinstall Windows. It's simply faster that way.
As for the "your user is just going to re-install it anyways" comment? I'm not worried. It was either me, or it was my son. No, I don't lock my game system down to prevent him from tampering with it. I'd rather he have the opportunity to fix it (or realy mess it up) himself. Besides, it's less than an hour from dead OS to fragging in UT2K4.
In many cases, the actual amount of time required looks like this:
Time to rebuild from scratch is less than 4 hours.
Time to discover root cause is greater than 4 hours.
Each method has it's good points, each it's bad. When it was just me, and I had hours to devote to discovery, that's the root that I chose. Now, with my son, girlfriend, house repairs, etc., it just doesn't make sense to invest that much time in discovery. Besides, it's not like my Win gaming computer is an HA server.
In many cases, the actual amount of time required looks like this:
Time to rebuild from scratch 4 hours.
Each method has it's good points, each it's bad. When it was just me, and I had hours to devote to discovery, that's the root that I chose. Now, with my son, girlfriend, house repairs, etc., it just doesn't make sense to invest that much time in discovery. Besides, it's not like my Win gaming computer is an HA server.
I think that you've stumbled onto an excellent idea there... Game police. Where do I sign up?
I think that ultimately, I agree that if you make a living off of a game, you should pay taxes. Anything that EVENLY distributes the tax base is a good idea.
You realize, of course, that this isn't unusual, right?
If you bought a home in the 1920's in a rural area with 0 property tax, and now a city has grown around you, you are now expected to pay property tax. NOT at the cost that you bought it for, but at it's potential resale value.
The belief is, that you are using the same services as your neighbours. Access to street cleaning, garbage removal, sewage services, etc. YOU may not have chosen for the city to grow around you, but you have no recourse.
This is one example. If you spend a few minutes, you will find countless other examples of taxation that occurs whether you spend the money today or not.
I've read the article (oh my!). It makes sense. If it were not possible to buy / sell their currency, it would not be taxable. Plain and simple.
My income is taxed.
Regardless of what service you provide, you should also pay taxes. Give to Ceaser what is Ceasers.
Shouldn't that be, "I felt a great disturbance in the tube..."
Telix... Now there's a blast from the past... I don't recall requiring seperate software for file transfers though... that's what the zmodem, xmodem, sealink, etc. were for.
I didn't go in for the chat thing much, but I do seem to remember grabbing a dozen different versions of the magik screen saver...
We mostly used it as a client to access various vendors sites to download drivers (scsi drivers, video drivers, hdd info (some disks didn't print the number of heads/cylinders etc. on them)...
Sure, things were more simple back then, but we spent a lot in long distance charges trying to grab the latest drivers. After a couple of years of downloading drivers and games and utilities and whatnot, we mucked with hosting our own Telix based bbs. It didn't last long - slip/ppp and mosaic changed the landscape.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your statement "an ISP's primary purpose is not the distribution of other people's personal information".
For the average home user, an ISP is the ONLY way that they can distribute their personal information, as a "home page" is generally provided without additional cost. It is up to the user to determine what information is posted, but the service is made available by the ISP.
I do agree that Jigsaw is EXPLICITLY offering this specific service, while an ISP offers a veritable plethora of services in comparison.
Incidentally, refusing to participate in a relationship is not harassment. It is merely antisocial.
Forcing him to participate in a relationship that he doesn't feel comfortable in would be harassment.
There was a time when companies kept antisocial employees "in the back room" or away from customers. As our workplace evolves, there is less room for people with behavioural quirks such as this. Eventually, he will likely find himself out of work and will have difficulty finding employment in his field, as the majority of tech-recruiters are female.
While I wouldn't hire a person with this type of behavioural anomaly, it's unfair to force him to adopt a social stance. He requires counseling, not insults.
He's indicated that the backup occurs every night, not realtime. So, he's got a couple of hours to scp the file back. Having said that, I'd hope that he'd use some form of revision control - like sccs or cvs - just in case.
There are dozens of optical disk jukebox solutions available. The biggest problem with them is cost.
HP used to sell them, and are likely a good starting point.
Here's the first link from a google search that I ran:
http://www.kintronics.com/jukebox.html
I used the following search criteria:
optical disk CD-ROM DVD jukebox
Good luck