Up front Disclaimer: I am a disgruntled former employee of
a Telco... laid off after 21 years
You, kind sir, proffered as professional a resignation as
necessary. There are no reciprocal gaurantees, and in the IT
field it is more typical than not for you to be treated nearly as
if you were a criminal.
Systems you once managed for your employers now are at risk.
Former peers are now potential spies. Do not be surprised to be
treated like you have some sort of exotic, deadly, contagious
disease. Don't expect anything for references other than
affirmation you actually did work there.
This is the fine world of trust we have achieved as a
civilised and evolved society. Trust not.
I will still always give professional courtesy (e.g.,
sufficient lead time for resignation) but I've left the corporate
world with a sour aftertaste.... It sucks, that's just the way
it is.
Up front Disclaimer: I realize the article is "just saying no
to Ajax" with constraints. My post here is to the objection I
think the article states Ajax problems too harshly.
Reading the article it seems to me:
most of the listed grievances are not unique to AJAX,
have been addressed in the past, and are probably soluble for
AJAX too. (e.g., how many remember the broken first browser
paradigms where there simply was no easy way to get the
information from a web page to some printer? It's not perfect
today, but it's doable. This problem is ultimately soluble for
AJAX too)
AJAX is the (to many) latest and greatest. Many will hold on
and gain purchase. Some will bail. I think AJAX or some
derivative thereof is here to stay. Like technology before AJAX,
there will always be naysayers, and there will always be
glitches. For this to justify a "Just Say No to
AJAX" philosophy is naive and maybe even misguided.
From the article:
Ajax is currently so hard to
learn that many page authors write buggy code.
Huh? So? Is this unique to only Ajax?
Also from the article:
Many websites that offer
users a choice between regular and ajax versions have found that
most users prefer ajax-free designs.
When an article wants to rant or complain about a technology,
an un-cited and broad statement like this is a huge red flag.
It doesn't state what the percentages are,
it doesn't state the reasons for preferences. In the middle of
an article espousing "no Ajax", this is a non-sequitor. Please
expand.
I'm having great fun experimenting with AJAX and am getting
interesting new approaches for old solutions improving customer
and user experiences. I'm not about to walk away from this until
a more thorough trial. So far I'm liking what I'm
seeing. Yeah, there are glitches to solve, isn't that kind of
what we're here for?
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously. Earnest discussions in academia are all very well, but who are the guilty ones? Let Guido remind you of the nomination criteria: a story has to be pinched from an original blog source, either verbatim or in essence, and no credit / payment given to the original source. This qualifies as plagiarism. Similar stories on subjects eliciting similar comments do not pass this test, since even lazy journalists can have the same ideas as brilliant bloggers.
Not trying to troll here or anything, but I think women in general are missing the elusive "gaming" chromosome (though it's prolly a gene), and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I happen to think there is some relationship between video
games and the effect they have on children and their development.
I also happen to think this is a poor article, claiming
"studies show", and citing not one. The best
the book does is reference a title of a book by an author
claiming effects, meta-citing I suppose.
If I were a concerned individual about anything and
this was the reference quality handed me by one side, I'd not be
swayed at all -- this borders on urban myth in its presentation
ala "they say that...".
Single letter domains? That seems way too simplistic,
obscure, and obfuscated! Hmmmm, sounds very unix-like, which got
me to wondering if and how many unix commands had been snarfed...
a casual off-the-top-of-my-head whatifs:
grep: "grep.com" 207.234.133.85
ls: "ls.com" 69.25.142.3
ping: "ping.com" 198.65.117.133
awk: "awk.com" 212.227.57.121
cd: "cd.com" 65.61.146.199
lpr: "lpr.com" unknown host lpr.com
...
Cool! I'm guessing almost all, or all (belatedly discovered
not all, see above), are taken.
Reminds me of my attempt way back to get "command.com" which
would have been very cool, but alas, a Canadian company of
all things already had it, and did not respond to my overtures to
get the domain. Sigh
The attitude that there's something wrong with introverted people is widely shared in society, where fast talk and snap decisions are often valued over listening, deliberation and careful planning
I consider myself introverted but I was always excellent applying technology and creating solutions that worked and usually exceeded expectations.
That "exceptional" technology skill got me invited to lots of decision-making and planning meetings and consortiums. But people often expressed afterwards (and sometimes even during) these sessions disappointment in my seemingly lack of participation or unwillingness to "speak up". I always apologized and explained I really couldn't find it in my constitution to say something unless I had something to say.
I usually found myself deep in thought about discussions ongoing but rarely found conclusions simple, even in seemingly simple scenarios. Overall I sometimes wonder how many dings I accumulated for that trait. (I will say, I did quite well for myself reputation-wise overall.)
I read the article, all set to be outraged by what a PR
spin this was to make this guy, and by association, the proposal
for Open Document format for Massechusetts, and by
meta-association, Open Source, ad nauseum, look bad.
You know what? It does look bad, but it looks bad for Quinn and his possible ethical lapses. If this guy really did
schmooze, if he really was on the dole for
anyone, then, my "side" or not, it's not good
and it's wrong! I hope it's mostly a case of not dotting the
i's, not crossing the t's, but if it's not, he owes an
explanation.
Quinn had (and still has) the potential to be a contributor to
the Open movement. He also has the potential to knock it back a
peg or two.
I'm huge Open Source, linux, anti-Microsoft (in the
"I-wish-they-would-cut-out-the-monopolistic-abuse- crap" sense), but not
at the
cost of ethics.
The most important reason that Windows based servers are doing so
well could be that programmers find it extremely easy to work on.Net and other related technologies (seamless integration). Plus,
you have hassle free and rapid support from Microsoft, which is a
comforting feature for corporate customers. When Windows Live
comes in, we will see further integration between the server and
online technical support areas, thereby making the
troubleshooting process easier for in-house administrators and
reducing overhead costs for the company.
Is this really true? The teams I worked with on.NET and
Windows technology hardly found the integration seamless. As a
matter of fact we had a full-time staff of Microsoft consultants
on-site as well as on call to help provide workarounds for all of
the glitches with the.NET technology, and there were a LOT of
them.
I do wish there were less license for this kind of publishing.
It is the complement to libel, i.e., it gives undue credit to
someone for something not true. Weird. And, it still does
damage to third party simply by virtue of lending credence and
credibility to.NET and Microsoft. Sigh.
First off, I suspect if you took almost
anything and "listened" to it, you would find
some such rhythm and/or pattern (either by speeding it up, as in
this article, or by slowing it down). To then leap to "singing" is
truly a leap. Of course the last line of the article may be some
indicator:
The tune even goes up and down, just like a real
song
Methinks the author may be confusing Britney Spears, et. al.,
with purveyors of music.
I wonder though, that this is just a trend that spans all disciplines. The argument holds sway (to idiots) in the same way: get someone younger for cheaper (they're nearly as good); get someone out of the country for cheaper (they nearly speak English, but, close enough); get anyone cheaper who's willing (they're not as good, but, hey, they're cheaper).
I think these are some very wrong attitudes, probably coming from some business curriculum. Lots of ideas that look good on paper, but don't translate well in real life. Unfortunately, the net results aren't evident until well down the road and the people who were hurt by the philosophy are long since permanently damaged, and the ones who made the decisions are long since promoted.
I don't think you're trolling, nor should you be modded so. I haven't gotten mod points for well over a year (long story, see this journal entry.) So, the best I can do is proxy-mod your comment "insightful" +1. Good post.
I think if you'd read my post, you'd see I explicitly stated:
not making any endorsement or criticism about the Global Warming debate, btw
I was merely mentioning the behavior of the general populace is similar around both ongoing debates.
As for your contention that the internet catastrophe's have already happened, you pointed out some things that created inconvenience for many, but the net effect of those "events" were hardly catastrophic as you astutely pointed out in your next (but contradicting your point) statement:
However, let's also remember that those events were pretty much mitigated within a day or two.
I kind of see this ongoing "reporting" on internet security
much like the Global Warming issue. There's lots of coverage,
lots of angst, but it doesn't seem to generate any or enough
action to proactively prevent eventual disaster (not making any
endorsement or criticism about the Global Warming debate, btw).
There isn't a day that goes by where there isn't yet another
major publication with yet another major story about yet another
major security glitch with yet another major application from yet
another major vendor. Frustrating.
In comparison and contrast to the GW issue, however, I think
it's empirically clear the threat is real and eventually there
will be (but I hope not) some catastrophic event
with the internet. Yet the IT world strolls along day to day,
without much really actively happening to prevent serious
down-the-road problems. I attribute that partially to:
Microsoft and their global domination of IT and their
abysmal track record around security. Microsoft has proclaimed
loudly their ongoing dedication to improving and eventually
fixing their security flaws but there is little to show for their
efforts. Microsoft, however, has not suffered greatly from this.
The complementary side, or the "consumers". I don't blame
them as they see the world typically today through Microsoft
colored glasses. They don't know of many alternatives, they
don't know much about alternatives of which they're aware, and
they don't much care because, "Nobody ever got fired for choosing
Microsoft." (Remember when that was IBM?)
No solutions here -- keep nudging clients, friends, consumers
to try alternative potentially "better" IT solutions, maybe it
WILL get better before a major catastrophe... sigh.
I really, really, really don't care what
OS I'm running on any of my machines. What I
care about is:
the running infrastructure has to be
very reliable.
it has to run programs I need to do my work
it has to have reasonable support
it has to be reasonably priced
it has to interoperate nicely with the rest of the world
it has to be configurable (in an easy to do, easy to
understand way)
it has to be FLEXIBLE
Right now, for me, the only OS that fits that bill is linux.
I seriously don't care that it's linux, but for all the reasons
above, it's my choice. (I know there are other candidates, I'm
only speaking for my criteria.)
In the meantime, I am grateful for MS, as a
steady source of income for me as I consult and help people keep
those machines running.
Assuming this is tongue-in-cheek. My experience has been no matter how poorly written or unmaintainable something is, it offers little insurance to the author for keeping a job. I've been handed the reins to maintain countless "gone" employees' code. And, if the code isn't maintainable and the program is important or desirable enough, companies just limp along with the deficiencies. I can't think of a single occasion where someone was kept because of fears of maintaining their code, nor where someone was brought back to maintain their 'unmaintainable' code.
(+/- 2 sigma complainers -- reply here)
Re:help me do my job here's the flamebait
on
PC Cloning Solution?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
for the stupid cocksuckers modding my parent post flamebait, what a bunch of stupid fucks!
for those who feel the need to mod something flamebait... go ahead. This is your post!
(Disclaimer: laid off after 21 years of knowing how to do my job. Now, apparently too expensive.)
A disturbing trend (or maybe it's always been and I haven't noticed) on slashdot seems to be people who ostensibly have jobs for which they're competent coming to the anointed techies of slashdot for answers. I suppose it would be considered "tapping all resources", but as an employer, I'd kind of expect my employees to know their job.
That aside, it would appear to be the luck of the draw who gets advice. My experience has been it is of little relation to whether one is deserving, and more related to how "wired in" one is to slashdot's anointed editors, or a little luck.
So, can everyone expect to "hire" slashdot for their problems at work?
I think there is genuine potential for good out these kinds of systems, and while I'm not inclined to respond to The Register articles, on this I'll call bull on at least one thing. From the slashdot article:
The Register further reports that the system will likely be used for issuing speeding fines.
The nearest thing I can find related to this is the experimental attempt by users of this new system to "enforce variable speed limits", which doesn't necessarily mean "issue speeding tickets". I think it's probably more along the lines of exactly what it describes, "variable" speed limits, i.e. limits that change based on variables!
The Register in typical fashion infers by the placement of readers.25 miles apart that this "quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well". I don't think the inference is necessarily or even likely correct.
I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!
And, if by having these types of systems in place we find certain drivers like to drive 100mph, great!, I for one am sick of subsidizing their behavior in my overloaded insurance premiums.
I could cite many more instances of good brought by these technologies, and certainly could cite two good results for any perceived bad results from this system.
As an aside, I didn't see a single believable real reference to bad results from this system, simply rehashes of constant old paranoia for which I've not seen many real cases (I know some exist).
Lets take a different look at the original issue. The
premise is this: The game industry is a highly interdependent
ecosystem that is the natural consequence of historical starting
conditions. It is not however the only form that a game
development culture can take. It is almost certainly not the most
profitable form
It's this kind of wording, thinking, angle of viewing the
world (i.e., highly interdependent ecosystem that is the
natural consequence of historical starting conditions.,
wtf?) that illustrates the niche characteristic of the gaming
community. Not many others think of interdependent ecosystems
(especially talking about games), nor natural consequences of
historical starting conditions.
I have some loves in my life: classical music; bicycling and
bicycle racing; and ping pong (yeah, I know, table
tennis... and for the record I have a 1600+ rating in
table tennis).
All of these loves I often wondered why the rest of the world
didn't see with my passion. I got busy with committees,
tournaments, advertising, evangelizing, etc. To no avail. For
the longest time I didn't "get it". But maybe older and wiser I
do -- all loves are not for all people. Maybe that's what makes
it such a cool world.
Games is a niche world. It's a pretty cool world,
but it's a niche world. It's a challenging world, but it's a
niche world. I've mastered many games, but never owned
any (other than what came for free with a computer).
Good luck to the gaming community, but I don't think the issue
is making gaming attractive to the universe, gaming looks like
gaming, people know what it is. A different selling
approach may show a momentary blip in the usage and participation
in games, maybe even an increase of some demographics, but the
equilibrium is pretty close today to what it will probably likely
be later. That's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.
Oh, and as not to be flamed for singling out games...
consider: (as some other niche markets unlikely to garner larger
markets)
Women's Golf
Women's Basketball
Tennis
Bicycle
Racing
World Wide Wrestling
Harley Davidsons
linux (at
least for now)
vi
emacs
Rowing
Frisbee
These are all interesting in their own right, just unlikely to
become world dominant.
From your post: Here's the result: (from the Microsoft summary...)
and, here was the "result":
Priorities are power
No, only if we have time. (What if he does convince Sally? The project's engineering work (as described briefly earlier)
Adherence to the project goals? If communication isn't working, switch the mode. Get people alone. Hunt people down. The three most basic ordered lists are: project goals (vision), list of features, and list of work items. If you can't say no, you effectively have no priorities.
Isn't it just like Microsoft to summarize with an unclosed parenthesis?
Disclaimer: I hate Sony. Hate them, hate
them, HATE them!
That said, I was a little put off by the article and suspected
it was a bit hyperbolic, designed to whip the masses into an
unwarranted (unwarranteed?) frenzy.
But, a funny thing happened on my way to show this critique a
bit harsh. I read the actual Sony EULA. Wow! I'll still say
there is a little hyperbole in the/. article but, on whole, it's
true! Holy Shit Batman (probably get a DRM ding for that!).
It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase
anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little
research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras).
I am saddened a little more each new DRM'ed day and more
thankful each day I was alive early enough to amass a comfortable
1000-CD collection of music I can freely copy, rip, etc.
I hope only better days for the X, Y, and Z generations. God
Bless all of you.
(Seriously, if there were some visible and concerted effort to
boycott one of these leading vendors, maybe there would be some
softening of this death march to control content (most consumers,
contrary to popular belief, are willing (and DO) to pay for their
media, don't abuse fair use priveleges, and are NOT criminals).
I can't contribute much more against SONY since I swore them off
from the MiniDisk debacle -- sold all of my SONY equipment, won't
buy ANY SONY equipment -- my house is as SONY-free as I've been
able to make it.)
From this day forward I will never spend a another
dime on content that I cant use the way I please. If I cant copy
it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when
and where I want, I wont be buying it. Period.
I agree. This has been my philosophy for a long time.
Unfortunately, you can only find out after the fact you've bought
something with crap built in. If there is any disclaimer at all
on the packaging, it's microscopic (look at the recent Beastie
Boys CD). The first thing I do with a new CD is rip it, verify
it plays on all of my PC's, and all of my CD and DVD players. If
it doesn't, I return it. (And, yes, I even erase the ripped
music.)
Slashdot Mirror
Up front Disclaimer: I am a disgruntled former employee of a Telco... laid off after 21 years
You, kind sir, proffered as professional a resignation as necessary. There are no reciprocal gaurantees, and in the IT field it is more typical than not for you to be treated nearly as if you were a criminal.
Systems you once managed for your employers now are at risk. Former peers are now potential spies. Do not be surprised to be treated like you have some sort of exotic, deadly, contagious disease. Don't expect anything for references other than affirmation you actually did work there.
This is the fine world of trust we have achieved as a civilised and evolved society. Trust not.
I will still always give professional courtesy (e.g., sufficient lead time for resignation) but I've left the corporate world with a sour aftertaste.... It sucks, that's just the way it is.
Up front Disclaimer: I realize the article is "just saying no to Ajax" with constraints. My post here is to the objection I think the article states Ajax problems too harshly.
Reading the article it seems to me:
From the article:
Huh? So? Is this unique to only Ajax?
Also from the article:
When an article wants to rant or complain about a technology, an un-cited and broad statement like this is a huge red flag. It doesn't state what the percentages are, it doesn't state the reasons for preferences. In the middle of an article espousing "no Ajax", this is a non-sequitor. Please expand.
I'm having great fun experimenting with AJAX and am getting interesting new approaches for old solutions improving customer and user experiences. I'm not about to walk away from this until a more thorough trial. So far I'm liking what I'm seeing. Yeah, there are glitches to solve, isn't that kind of what we're here for?
I absolutely agree! Here's my take on it:
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously. Earnest discussions in academia are all very well, but who are the guilty ones? Let Guido remind you of the nomination criteria: a story has to be pinched from an original blog source, either verbatim or in essence, and no credit / payment given to the original source. This qualifies as plagiarism. Similar stories on subjects eliciting similar comments do not pass this test, since even lazy journalists can have the same ideas as brilliant bloggers.
Not trying to troll here or anything, but I think women in general are missing the elusive "gaming" chromosome (though it's prolly a gene), and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I happen to think there is some relationship between video games and the effect they have on children and their development.
I also happen to think this is a poor article, claiming "studies show", and citing not one. The best the book does is reference a title of a book by an author claiming effects, meta-citing I suppose.
If I were a concerned individual about anything and this was the reference quality handed me by one side, I'd not be swayed at all -- this borders on urban myth in its presentation ala "they say that...".
Funny, I just posted a journal entry of a letter I wrote to the Tribune about what appears to be a really annoying Macromedia "rollover ad".
Maybe Adobe will encourage users not to do this... (I know this is WAY off topic... but I'm upset about the abuse.) Mod me.
Obviously not a Unix person.
From the slashdot article:
or he'd already have known:
Single letter domains? That seems way too simplistic, obscure, and obfuscated! Hmmmm, sounds very unix-like, which got me to wondering if and how many unix commands had been snarfed... a casual off-the-top-of-my-head whatifs:
Cool! I'm guessing almost all, or all (belatedly discovered not all, see above), are taken.
Reminds me of my attempt way back to get "command.com" which would have been very cool, but alas, a Canadian company of all things already had it, and did not respond to my overtures to get the domain. Sigh
From the slashdot article:
I consider myself introverted but I was always excellent applying technology and creating solutions that worked and usually exceeded expectations.
That "exceptional" technology skill got me invited to lots of decision-making and planning meetings and consortiums. But people often expressed afterwards (and sometimes even during) these sessions disappointment in my seemingly lack of participation or unwillingness to "speak up". I always apologized and explained I really couldn't find it in my constitution to say something unless I had something to say.
I usually found myself deep in thought about discussions ongoing but rarely found conclusions simple, even in seemingly simple scenarios. Overall I sometimes wonder how many dings I accumulated for that trait. (I will say, I did quite well for myself reputation-wise overall.)
Curiouser and curiouser.
I read the article, all set to be outraged by what a PR spin this was to make this guy, and by association, the proposal for Open Document format for Massechusetts, and by meta-association, Open Source, ad nauseum, look bad.
You know what? It does look bad, but it looks bad for Quinn and his possible ethical lapses. If this guy really did schmooze, if he really was on the dole for anyone, then, my "side" or not, it's not good and it's wrong! I hope it's mostly a case of not dotting the i's, not crossing the t's, but if it's not, he owes an explanation.
Quinn had (and still has) the potential to be a contributor to the Open movement. He also has the potential to knock it back a peg or two.
I'm huge Open Source, linux, anti-Microsoft (in the "I-wish-they-would-cut-out-the-monopolistic-abuse- crap" sense), but not
at the
cost of ethics.
From the article:
Is this really true? The teams I worked with on .NET and
Windows technology hardly found the integration seamless. As a
matter of fact we had a full-time staff of Microsoft consultants
on-site as well as on call to help provide workarounds for all of
the glitches with the .NET technology, and there were a LOT of
them.
I do wish there were less license for this kind of publishing. It is the complement to libel, i.e., it gives undue credit to someone for something not true. Weird. And, it still does damage to third party simply by virtue of lending credence and credibility to .NET and Microsoft. Sigh.
First off, I suspect if you took almost anything and "listened" to it, you would find some such rhythm and/or pattern (either by speeding it up, as in this article, or by slowing it down). To then leap to "singing" is truly a leap. Of course the last line of the article may be some indicator:
Methinks the author may be confusing Britney Spears, et. al., with purveyors of music.
I think you've got it right on.
I wonder though, that this is just a trend that spans all disciplines. The argument holds sway (to idiots) in the same way: get someone younger for cheaper (they're nearly as good); get someone out of the country for cheaper (they nearly speak English, but, close enough); get anyone cheaper who's willing (they're not as good, but, hey, they're cheaper).
I think these are some very wrong attitudes, probably coming from some business curriculum. Lots of ideas that look good on paper, but don't translate well in real life. Unfortunately, the net results aren't evident until well down the road and the people who were hurt by the philosophy are long since permanently damaged, and the ones who made the decisions are long since promoted.
I don't think you're trolling, nor should you be modded so. I haven't gotten mod points for well over a year (long story, see this journal entry.) So, the best I can do is proxy-mod your comment "insightful" +1. Good post.
I think if you'd read my post, you'd see I explicitly stated:
I was merely mentioning the behavior of the general populace is similar around both ongoing debates.
As for your contention that the internet catastrophe's have already happened, you pointed out some things that created inconvenience for many, but the net effect of those "events" were hardly catastrophic as you astutely pointed out in your next (but contradicting your point) statement:
I kind of see this ongoing "reporting" on internet security much like the Global Warming issue. There's lots of coverage, lots of angst, but it doesn't seem to generate any or enough action to proactively prevent eventual disaster (not making any endorsement or criticism about the Global Warming debate, btw).
There isn't a day that goes by where there isn't yet another major publication with yet another major story about yet another major security glitch with yet another major application from yet another major vendor. Frustrating.
In comparison and contrast to the GW issue, however, I think it's empirically clear the threat is real and eventually there will be (but I hope not) some catastrophic event with the internet. Yet the IT world strolls along day to day, without much really actively happening to prevent serious down-the-road problems. I attribute that partially to:
No solutions here -- keep nudging clients, friends, consumers to try alternative potentially "better" IT solutions, maybe it WILL get better before a major catastrophe... sigh.
I really, really, really don't care what OS I'm running on any of my machines. What I care about is:
Right now, for me, the only OS that fits that bill is linux. I seriously don't care that it's linux, but for all the reasons above, it's my choice. (I know there are other candidates, I'm only speaking for my criteria.)
In the meantime, I am grateful for MS, as a steady source of income for me as I consult and help people keep those machines running.
Assuming this is tongue-in-cheek. My experience has been no matter how poorly written or unmaintainable something is, it offers little insurance to the author for keeping a job. I've been handed the reins to maintain countless "gone" employees' code. And, if the code isn't maintainable and the program is important or desirable enough, companies just limp along with the deficiencies. I can't think of a single occasion where someone was kept because of fears of maintaining their code, nor where someone was brought back to maintain their 'unmaintainable' code.
(+/- 2 sigma complainers -- reply here)
for the stupid cocksuckers modding my parent post flamebait, what a bunch of stupid fucks!
for those who feel the need to mod something flamebait... go ahead. This is your post!
(Disclaimer: laid off after 21 years of knowing how to do my job. Now, apparently too expensive.)
A disturbing trend (or maybe it's always been and I haven't noticed) on slashdot seems to be people who ostensibly have jobs for which they're competent coming to the anointed techies of slashdot for answers. I suppose it would be considered "tapping all resources", but as an employer, I'd kind of expect my employees to know their job.
That aside, it would appear to be the luck of the draw who gets advice. My experience has been it is of little relation to whether one is deserving, and more related to how "wired in" one is to slashdot's anointed editors, or a little luck.
So, can everyone expect to "hire" slashdot for their problems at work?
I think there is genuine potential for good out these kinds of systems, and while I'm not inclined to respond to The Register articles, on this I'll call bull on at least one thing. From the slashdot article:
The nearest thing I can find related to this is the experimental attempt by users of this new system to "enforce variable speed limits", which doesn't necessarily mean "issue speeding tickets". I think it's probably more along the lines of exactly what it describes, "variable" speed limits, i.e. limits that change based on variables!
The Register in typical fashion infers by the placement of readers .25 miles apart that this "quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well". I don't think the inference is necessarily or even likely correct.
I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!
And, if by having these types of systems in place we find certain drivers like to drive 100mph, great!, I for one am sick of subsidizing their behavior in my overloaded insurance premiums.
I could cite many more instances of good brought by these technologies, and certainly could cite two good results for any perceived bad results from this system.
As an aside, I didn't see a single believable real reference to bad results from this system, simply rehashes of constant old paranoia for which I've not seen many real cases (I know some exist).
From the article:
It's this kind of wording, thinking, angle of viewing the world (i.e., highly interdependent ecosystem that is the natural consequence of historical starting conditions., wtf?) that illustrates the niche characteristic of the gaming community. Not many others think of interdependent ecosystems (especially talking about games), nor natural consequences of historical starting conditions.
I have some loves in my life: classical music; bicycling and bicycle racing; and ping pong (yeah, I know, table tennis... and for the record I have a 1600+ rating in table tennis).
All of these loves I often wondered why the rest of the world didn't see with my passion. I got busy with committees, tournaments, advertising, evangelizing, etc. To no avail. For the longest time I didn't "get it". But maybe older and wiser I do -- all loves are not for all people. Maybe that's what makes it such a cool world.
Games is a niche world. It's a pretty cool world, but it's a niche world. It's a challenging world, but it's a niche world. I've mastered many games, but never owned any (other than what came for free with a computer).
Good luck to the gaming community, but I don't think the issue is making gaming attractive to the universe, gaming looks like gaming, people know what it is. A different selling approach may show a momentary blip in the usage and participation in games, maybe even an increase of some demographics, but the equilibrium is pretty close today to what it will probably likely be later. That's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.
Oh, and as not to be flamed for singling out games... consider: (as some other niche markets unlikely to garner larger markets)
These are all interesting in their own right, just unlikely to become world dominant.
From your post: Here's the result: (from the Microsoft summary...)
and, here was the "result":
Isn't it just like Microsoft to summarize with an unclosed parenthesis?
Never owned a game box of any kind in my life, never intend to. Never "got" games.
Disclaimer: I hate Sony. Hate them, hate them, HATE them!
That said, I was a little put off by the article and suspected it was a bit hyperbolic, designed to whip the masses into an unwarranted (unwarranteed?) frenzy.
But, a funny thing happened on my way to show this critique a bit harsh. I read the actual Sony EULA. Wow! I'll still say there is a little hyperbole in the /. article but, on whole, it's
true! Holy Shit Batman (probably get a DRM ding for that!).
It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras).
I am saddened a little more each new DRM'ed day and more thankful each day I was alive early enough to amass a comfortable 1000-CD collection of music I can freely copy, rip, etc.
I hope only better days for the X, Y, and Z generations. God Bless all of you.
(Seriously, if there were some visible and concerted effort to boycott one of these leading vendors, maybe there would be some softening of this death march to control content (most consumers, contrary to popular belief, are willing (and DO) to pay for their media, don't abuse fair use priveleges, and are NOT criminals). I can't contribute much more against SONY since I swore them off from the MiniDisk debacle -- sold all of my SONY equipment, won't buy ANY SONY equipment -- my house is as SONY-free as I've been able to make it.)
From his blog:
I agree. This has been my philosophy for a long time. Unfortunately, you can only find out after the fact you've bought something with crap built in. If there is any disclaimer at all on the packaging, it's microscopic (look at the recent Beastie Boys CD). The first thing I do with a new CD is rip it, verify it plays on all of my PC's, and all of my CD and DVD players. If it doesn't, I return it. (And, yes, I even erase the ripped music.)