It is important to understand the other side of this... blind culture, much like deaf culture, is a distinct means of life - one that doesn't think that blind (or deaf) people are "broken" in some way.
Them thinking it doesn't make it true. I'm certainly not bashing blind culture, deaf culture or any other culture here, but they are, in fact, "broken". They have organs that don't work as designed. Doesn't make them lesser people, doesn't mean they aren't as happy, fulfilled, mean, frustrated, joyful, etc., as anyone else. But a culture that insists that loss of sight or hearing is not a handicap (or worse, is something to be celebrated), is kidding itself.
I've seen the battles in deaf culture over the use of cochlear implants, and some of the arguments I find ridiculous. Insisting that a child remain deaf, when the option exists to allow them to hear at least somewhat, just so that they can remain part of "deaf culture", strikes me as being on the same level as those who insist that a black kid who strives to excel academically is betraying his heritage by "acting white".
Negative. Need to know is at best a subjective term. You need to have clearance to view the material. That is all.
I'm not sure where you got *your* clearance, but when I held one, you needed both a appropriate level clearance and the need-to-know. Otherwise, people with a high-level clearance could basically poke around to see what's going on. Security demands that the minimum number of people be involved, and that each of those people are appropriately cleared, which is why both factors are considered.
Please do not construe this as approval of *anything* done under this administration, or by this Congress.
This is no different than paying for your business to be located on a major highway; I still do not see where the analogy falls apart.
It falls apart thusly: Why do people pay more to be located on a major highway? Because there are many people passing by who can see their store, and because it's easy for people to get there and shop.
Now, suppose the town planners come to the business and says "Pay us extra, and we'll ensure that *everyone* from area X has easy access to your store, while driving to other stores will be more difficult (roads full of potholes, etc.)." Well, what if I live in area X, but I want to shop somewhere else? Too bad for me, because all I have is the access that my town planners (local telco) decides to give me.
Even here, you are missing the real point. The business has paid for access to the network. I have paid for access to the network. The telcos whining about "freeloaders" are lying, purely and simply. They are just looking for a reason to limit everyone's easy access to every site, because they see a business advantage in it. I am not paying to have my access 'customized' in a direction that they choose.
I am most playing devil's advocate here. I do not like this either, but I cannot really find a reason why the Telcos are doing anything wrong.
Because the analogy is a bit flawed. This is more a case of me traveling to where a business is located. Once I leave my house, there are many different routes I can take to get there. The telco proposal is that if I want to go to a business they have a deal with, I get to use the highway. Otherwise, I can take the back roads through the industrial park. And I don't get to choose, because the telco owns the roads, and they'll route me along as they see fit. This despite the fact that both the business and I have already paid for the roads.
Animal, in this context, is a compliment (at least somewhat). It implies that the person has a single-minded tenacity towards x, where x is whatever they are doing for the company.
To call a programmer an animal is to imply that they will willingly work long hours to achieve their goal, and will not rest as long as there remain improvements to be made in their code. For a salesguy, it might mean someone who will take four flights in one day to meet four different clients.
Note that being an animal at work can have bad effects on the rest of your life. That kind of monomaniacal focus requires a lot from someone, and it has to come from somewhere, usually their personal lives. That's one reason he posits an upper age limit, I suspect: it's damn hard to maintain that sort of approach as one ages.
I started my own consulting business about 18 months ago, and was lucky enough to land a nice 14-month long gig with the company that laid me off, working on a major software implementation. Nice, eh?
Well, it was, until the project kept growing, and they kept requiring me to bring on more people to help finish the project. I was opposed to adding people, but it was "if you can't, we'll have to find someone who can". We were billing on an hourly basis, but the lag time on invoices began to creep up, mostly due to the fact that my previous company was bought out, and the billing system cut-over didn't go all that well.
Long, sad story later, I was *way* in the hole, and about to vanish into a cashflow crunch that would eat my little company. I went to my client and laid out the situation for them. I told them that I had not expected to have so many people on the project (about 16 subcontractors, each pulling in around $50/hour), and pointed out all the efforts I had made to meet their shifting requirements. After a very reasonable conversation, my primary contact lit a medium-sized fire under the AP department, and I got a sizeable check that put us up to date.
So, I believe that sometimes letting the client know that they've put you in a bind can be useful. Particularly in this case, where replacing my whole team mid-project wasn't a great option for them.
Re:In the land of empty tanks
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Okay, let's stack the amount it takes to produce and then operate a bicycle against the amount it takes to produce *and run* a car. Or are you of the opinion that producing a 10-12 kilo bicycle takes as much machining as a 1500+ kilo car?
Slashdot Mirror
Them thinking it doesn't make it true. I'm certainly not bashing blind culture, deaf culture or any other culture here, but they are, in fact, "broken". They have organs that don't work as designed. Doesn't make them lesser people, doesn't mean they aren't as happy, fulfilled, mean, frustrated, joyful, etc., as anyone else. But a culture that insists that loss of sight or hearing is not a handicap (or worse, is something to be celebrated), is kidding itself.
I've seen the battles in deaf culture over the use of cochlear implants, and some of the arguments I find ridiculous. Insisting that a child remain deaf, when the option exists to allow them to hear at least somewhat, just so that they can remain part of "deaf culture", strikes me as being on the same level as those who insist that a black kid who strives to excel academically is betraying his heritage by "acting white".
I'm not sure where you got *your* clearance, but when I held one, you needed both a appropriate level clearance and the need-to-know. Otherwise, people with a high-level clearance could basically poke around to see what's going on. Security demands that the minimum number of people be involved, and that each of those people are appropriately cleared, which is why both factors are considered.
Please do not construe this as approval of *anything* done under this administration, or by this Congress.
It falls apart thusly: Why do people pay more to be located on a major highway? Because there are many people passing by who can see their store, and because it's easy for people to get there and shop.
Now, suppose the town planners come to the business and says "Pay us extra, and we'll ensure that *everyone* from area X has easy access to your store, while driving to other stores will be more difficult (roads full of potholes, etc.)." Well, what if I live in area X, but I want to shop somewhere else? Too bad for me, because all I have is the access that my town planners (local telco) decides to give me.
Even here, you are missing the real point. The business has paid for access to the network. I have paid for access to the network. The telcos whining about "freeloaders" are lying, purely and simply. They are just looking for a reason to limit everyone's easy access to every site, because they see a business advantage in it. I am not paying to have my access 'customized' in a direction that they choose.
Because the analogy is a bit flawed. This is more a case of me traveling to where a business is located. Once I leave my house, there are many different routes I can take to get there. The telco proposal is that if I want to go to a business they have a deal with, I get to use the highway. Otherwise, I can take the back roads through the industrial park. And I don't get to choose, because the telco owns the roads, and they'll route me along as they see fit. This despite the fact that both the business and I have already paid for the roads.
It's crap.
To call a programmer an animal is to imply that they will willingly work long hours to achieve their goal, and will not rest as long as there remain improvements to be made in their code. For a salesguy, it might mean someone who will take four flights in one day to meet four different clients.
Note that being an animal at work can have bad effects on the rest of your life. That kind of monomaniacal focus requires a lot from someone, and it has to come from somewhere, usually their personal lives. That's one reason he posits an upper age limit, I suspect: it's damn hard to maintain that sort of approach as one ages.
Well, it was, until the project kept growing, and they kept requiring me to bring on more people to help finish the project. I was opposed to adding people, but it was "if you can't, we'll have to find someone who can". We were billing on an hourly basis, but the lag time on invoices began to creep up, mostly due to the fact that my previous company was bought out, and the billing system cut-over didn't go all that well.
Long, sad story later, I was *way* in the hole, and about to vanish into a cashflow crunch that would eat my little company. I went to my client and laid out the situation for them. I told them that I had not expected to have so many people on the project (about 16 subcontractors, each pulling in around $50/hour), and pointed out all the efforts I had made to meet their shifting requirements. After a very reasonable conversation, my primary contact lit a medium-sized fire under the AP department, and I got a sizeable check that put us up to date.
So, I believe that sometimes letting the client know that they've put you in a bind can be useful. Particularly in this case, where replacing my whole team mid-project wasn't a great option for them.
Okay, let's stack the amount it takes to produce and then operate a bicycle against the amount it takes to produce *and run* a car. Or are you of the opinion that producing a 10-12 kilo bicycle takes as much machining as a 1500+ kilo car?