I'm 22, and have been employed at a major (Fortune 50) corporation as a Solaris sysadmin for the last 3 years. Prior to that, I was employed as a general UNIX support wonk at a cable network. At the outset, I had definitely harbored brazen ideals of coming in and being the 'maverick' who would change the way things work. To be perfectly honest, I have indeed changed things quite significantly, and my ideas have indeed been listened to. However, I definitely had to go through a lengthy period of trial by fire to get where I am today.
At this point, I am the technical lead of my group, and Senior (heh) Sysadmin. My manager is in his 30s, and most of my cow-orkers are older than he. I would not say that aforementioned brazen idealism has gotten me here, more a willingness to understand both the technical and business sides of an issue, and weigh both accordingly. A young person can gain respect, but in my experience it must be earned. Why expect it handed on a silver platter? I've learned immensely since beginning here (both technically and interpersonally), and would admit freely that I was not ready for my current levels of responsibility at the outset.
People were skeptical, plain and simple. Conducting one's self in a mature and businesslike manner in situations which call for it almost certainly supercedes technical ability in the realm of garnering respect. I'm not saying that I changed in any specific, or 'sold out' (whatever that may mean); I simply learned to let go a bit when a battle was being fought against insurmountable bureaucracy.
...And hey, I still get to wear jeans and birkenstocks every day.:-)
The question as to 'Why 42?' has been answered dozens of times by Mr. Adams in other interviews. His reply was always something like, "I just stared out my garden window for a while, and finally thought, 'Forty-two would be nice.'" If you're looking for answers like this, I would highly suggest Neil Gaiman's book "Don't Panic", which contains answers to the most frequently-asked Hitchhiker questions.
Now I just need to think up a bloody question to ask him myself...
This is the ultimate irony of this situation, and its aftermath. The media chose to incite a 'geek scare' after this event, despite the fact that it is more frequently the persecutors of those who are different who behave in a brutal manner. The killers, these two fools, were not part of some sort of underground alliance of downtrodden geeks. They were on the same level as those who do the persecution: Cold, unfeeling people who fill some void in their personal lives (or self-esteem) by beating on others. Bullies, in classic terms.
Speaking strictly from personal memories (feel free to refute this), being the quintessential geek and having the associated pariah status always led to self-deprecating feelings. I never wanted to hurt anyone else, though they certainly wanted to hurt me. But that's the past, and I feel somehow more well-rounded for having experienced it.
Frankly, trying to put general terms on people (especially those whom the terms do not fit) for the advancement of a cause is somewhat shady, to say the least.
UNIX, in its myriad forms, is ubiquitous for a reason. Not only has it evolved significantly since its creation, it has evolved intelligently, with many clueful people deciding its path. Realistically, there are few (if any) operating systems which match the ground-up approach to networking inherent in most every flavor of UNIX. This pretty much ensures its role as the backbone of the internet. It has a strong hold on servers for a reason, and it certainly would not have survived this long were it not architected well. The open-source derivatives which have captivated everyone lately are the most logical step -- they create a kind of 'forced' evolution. Weed out the good and the bad by passing every change through as many people as possible. This will ensure that UNIX in one form or another is around for many years, if not decades, to come.
When I first heard of Kubrick's death, I remember being distraught not only at the demise of a brilliant man, but also because "AI" would never be realized. After reading this article, I have somewhat mixed feelings. Sure, Spielberg has come through with some stunning movies, but most of them were aimed more or less at box-office draw. I just find it hard to believe that he will honestly be able to replace such an amazing visionary, no matter what Kubrick's brother-in-law (or whomever) thinks.
However, despite my apprehension, it's deceidedly better that the movie is made rather than forgotten. The concept of AI that Kubrick began exploring with HAL has never really been explored any further (with the possible exception of the Matrix) despite its potential for stunning impacts on every human philosophy should it ever actually come to fruition.
OK, well, to give Spielberg some credit, Close Encounters was pretty thought-provoking. Not in the way that Kubrick's movies are, though. Special effects were a means to him, not an end in and of themselves.
Terry Gilliam and Neil Gaiman are undoubtedly two of the most talented creative forces in the world today. Both have come through with works that beg the viewer/reader to probe deeper, and ask questions beyond the immediate material presented. What scares the crap out of me is that by adapting a phenomenal book like "Good Omens" to the big screen, Hollywood is not pandering to the lowest common denomenator. Now that is unique! Even if the movie retains only a small fraction of the book's subtle wit, it will tower over most other movies in terms of its appeal to geeks everywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
For what it's worth...
:-)
I'm 22, and have been employed at a major (Fortune 50) corporation as a Solaris sysadmin for the last 3 years. Prior to that, I was employed as a general UNIX support wonk at a cable network. At the outset, I had definitely harbored brazen ideals of coming in and being the 'maverick' who would change the way things work. To be perfectly honest, I have indeed changed things quite significantly, and my ideas have indeed been listened to. However, I definitely had to go through a lengthy period of trial by fire to get where I am today.
At this point, I am the technical lead of my group, and Senior (heh) Sysadmin. My manager is in his 30s, and most of my cow-orkers are older than he. I would not say that aforementioned brazen idealism has gotten me here, more a willingness to understand both the technical and business sides of an issue, and weigh both accordingly. A young person can gain respect, but in my experience it must be earned. Why expect it handed on a silver platter? I've learned immensely since beginning here (both technically and interpersonally), and would admit freely that I was not ready for my current levels of responsibility at the outset.
People were skeptical, plain and simple. Conducting one's self in a mature and businesslike manner in situations which call for it almost certainly supercedes technical ability in the realm of garnering respect. I'm not saying that I changed in any specific, or 'sold out' (whatever that may mean); I simply learned to let go a bit when a battle was being fought against insurmountable bureaucracy.
...And hey, I still get to wear jeans and birkenstocks every day.
--frood
The question as to 'Why 42?' has been answered dozens of times by Mr. Adams in other interviews. His reply was always something like, "I just stared out my garden window for a while, and finally thought, 'Forty-two would be nice.'" If you're looking for answers like this, I would highly suggest Neil Gaiman's book "Don't Panic", which contains answers to the most frequently-asked Hitchhiker questions.
Now I just need to think up a bloody question to ask him myself...
--frood
This is the ultimate irony of this situation, and its aftermath. The media chose to incite a 'geek scare' after this event, despite the fact that it is more frequently the persecutors of those who are different who behave in a brutal manner. The killers, these two fools, were not part of some sort of underground alliance of downtrodden geeks. They were on the same level as those who do the persecution: Cold, unfeeling people who fill some void in their personal lives (or self-esteem) by beating on others. Bullies, in classic terms.
Speaking strictly from personal memories (feel free to refute this), being the quintessential geek and having the associated pariah status always led to self-deprecating feelings. I never wanted to hurt anyone else, though they certainly wanted to hurt me. But that's the past, and I feel somehow more well-rounded for having experienced it.
Frankly, trying to put general terms on people (especially those whom the terms do not fit) for the advancement of a cause is somewhat shady, to say the least.
--frood
UNIX, in its myriad forms, is ubiquitous for a reason. Not only has it evolved significantly since its creation, it has evolved intelligently, with many clueful people deciding its path. Realistically, there are few (if any) operating systems which match the ground-up approach to networking inherent in most every flavor of UNIX. This pretty much ensures its role as the backbone of the internet. It has a strong hold on servers for a reason, and it certainly would not have survived this long were it not architected well. The open-source derivatives which have captivated everyone lately are the most logical step -- they create a kind of 'forced' evolution. Weed out the good and the bad by passing every change through as many people as possible. This will ensure that UNIX in one form or another is around for many years, if not decades, to come.
--frood
When I first heard of Kubrick's death, I remember being distraught not only at the demise of a brilliant man, but also because "AI" would never be realized. After reading this article, I have somewhat mixed feelings. Sure, Spielberg has come through with some stunning movies, but most of them were aimed more or less at box-office draw. I just find it hard to believe that he will honestly be able to replace such an amazing visionary, no matter what Kubrick's brother-in-law (or whomever) thinks.
However, despite my apprehension, it's deceidedly better that the movie is made rather than forgotten. The concept of AI that Kubrick began exploring with HAL has never really been explored any further (with the possible exception of the Matrix) despite its potential for stunning impacts on every human philosophy should it ever actually come to fruition.
OK, well, to give Spielberg some credit, Close Encounters was pretty thought-provoking. Not in the way that Kubrick's movies are, though. Special effects were a means to him, not an end in and of themselves.
--frood
Terry Gilliam and Neil Gaiman are undoubtedly two of the most talented creative forces in the world today. Both have come through with works that beg the viewer/reader to probe deeper, and ask questions beyond the immediate material presented. What scares the crap out of me is that by adapting a phenomenal book like "Good Omens" to the big screen, Hollywood is not pandering to the lowest common denomenator. Now that is unique! Even if the movie retains only a small fraction of the book's subtle wit, it will tower over most other movies in terms of its appeal to geeks everywhere.
--frood