play with something interpretive (not basic)... forego the hassle of having to learn compilation and compile debugging to start. (I suggest perl, if you can master some simple concepts in perl quickly, you're likely to have some programming aptitude or be completely looney.)
step up to some 3GL... I prefer C or C++, but you'll have to learn about compiling, executables, etc.
invest all time necessary to be fluent in the debugging facilities of ANY language you choose, and by that I don't mean learning "print" statements, they're totally useless, take too much time, and perturb code you think you're debugging. (NOTE: this investment will be dear, but the Return on Investment is a windfall).
avoid "IDE's" like Visual Studio if you can, they start you out with a crutch you may never throw away and keep the underpinnings of languages opaque. If you AREN'T interested in learning how languages work, skip this bullet.
A couple of points: I can't stress enough achieving fluency in your editor of choice. Create a sample file, write down a list of changes, navigations, etc. and DO THEM ad nauseum... until it's second nature. The last thing you want in programming is the noise that is editing.
Also, learning debugging techniques is off-the-scale important. I was the pariah on a team I worked with because I fell a few days behing on some "assignments". The team was incredibly hostile. I was new to the environment and was spending up-front time learning the debugger of the environment. The team demanded I use print statements and I refused. Within a week (when I had caught up), team members asked how I was doing things looking over my shoulder. I soon had the rest of the team using the debugger and establishing that as the standard (I know, I know, what kind of team was that in the first place???, no comment).
Good comment and good insight. I didn't intend my original post as flamebait, and I didn't mean it as "America first". I have received heat on my post, probably after re-reading my original post, deservedly.
I stand by my thoughts I don't see the internet as it run today as being broken. I would stand hand in hand with complainants if the United States were to do something stupid unilaterally with the internet "configuration". I would hope it wouldn't but as you validly point out it wouldn't be the first time.
I do think the internet is a unique animal though in that it has become such a prevalent environment that to mess with its status quo could do more damage to the United States than would be worth any changes.
I guess ulitmately I don't see the situation as broken and I cringe to see unbroken things fixed.
Thanks for the comments (and I don't take them personally..:-) )
Hmmm, I read your first paragraph and see that your method of discourse includes ad hominem attacks.
I won't question your intellect, I assume you are plenty intelligent.
Your cars analogy is an interesting one among others that have been suggested to me (in varying levels of animosity). But the internet is a trickier entity to define and label the same way as cars.
You are correct the internet is the internet. But I'm not getting the point (and since you're indicating this is from a lack of intelligence) maybe you could educate me as to how the DNS servers dramatically (or at all) as running today limit or hinder other sovereignties from effectively using the internet. How are others stopped from doing business on the internet?
Ultimately I don't really care who controls the DNS servers as long as they're run reliably. I guess in that sense I could argue I don't understand why the United States cares if others control that.
To your point, the internet IS the internet, it is larger than the United States, it is an electronic fabric connecting e-communications. No matter WHO would exercise stewardship over the DNS, doing so in a way that hindered internet progress and use would create such a backlash, I don't think it would make much difference who owned it.
Oh boy, I seem to be taking lots o' heat for my original post. I didn't mean it as flame, nor was I trying to impugn anyone's ability to help manage the internet. I mostly was trying to say that in the larger picture of things needing fixing, I don't see this as something broken, and I cringe when I see unbroken things fixed.
And, re your analogy, the rest of the world seems to continue to use the internet unencumbered (reasonably). Is there something seriously awry with world access to the internet?
Anyway, not meant to inflame, probably a bit more pithy than I should have been.
How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it
an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow
from those efforts and work?
This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny
toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the
world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).
I don't think the U.S. is the wisest and most sage about everything, but seriously,
what is considered the risk here for it maintaining stewardship. It may have misstepped
once or twice but empirical evidence suggests competent management (note I didn't say
the "best"), and I haven't seen any contraindications to the detriment of the rest
of the world.
I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest
the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more
seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today.
(Meanwhile, has anyone peeked at the ozone hole lately?)
Thanks for your clarifications, and for not taking too personally my comments. I'm not surprised at your further comments and hope the best for your future. I'm always pleased for those who navigate the business waters smoothly and gain satisfaction and find success in their careers.
To further clarify my comments, I did generalize but did not intend to stipulate by post your situation was a bad one.
My experiences in the last two years leave me seeing the business landscape through a different prism than before I was laid off after 21 years of what I thought would be a complete career. I've posted many times about my "plight" (though I do not ask for sympathy, I am sorting through and working out my issues in my professional life and expect to eventually be fully on my feet again).
I too worked closely with top level managers and received many choice assignments and was recognized and rewarded handsomely for my work. But around the dotcom bust, our company merged with another, on paper that is.
In reality that other company (much smaller than ours, btw) took control and with the help of a CEO who is now dogged by the legal system, we spiraled into the whirlpool that was the bust. Our stock dropped from over fifty dollars a share to less than two dollars a share. On paper (all of it mature) I lost over $500,000 -- a big hit to my retirement and savings plan.
Our crooked (alleged) CEO was forced out, but walked away with $500,000,000! A bitter pill to swallow, but I resolved to continue and finish my career there and to contribute to my best ability (while somewhat non-traditional, still good stuff based on my reviews, salary, bonuses and stock options).
Eighteen months ago my manager took me into the conference room and told me what I had figured out walking to the room (there had been rumors). Twenty percent of IT gone in one cut. No press releases.
And, I was treated like a criminal. By the time I got to my desk to pick up my personal belongings my login had disappeared and my badge access was disabled. I couldn't immediately go home because I was a bus commuter and there were only three buses in the morning and three in the evening so I had from 9a.m. til 4p.m. to kill before I could head home (I guess they could've hired me a cab, but I'm not even sure there were cabs that would take me the sixty miles to my house).
My manager had someone "watch" me the rest of the day and dropped in a couple times an hour to make sure I wasn't doing anything "wrong" (not to see how I was doing).
Upon departure, while I was supposed to have contact and e-mail for sixty days, because of an IT DNS configuration problem (how ironic is that?) I could not send or receive e-mail for the first forty of those sixty days.
No list of laid off employees was distributed, I could not find out from those still there who was laid off, they did not know themselves.
And while I was "encouraged" to find another position within the company during those sixty days what I wasn't told was the company had put a zero-tolerance hiring freeze in place for that time. This, while I was networking (I still had the phone!) with other directors and managers who were more than pleased when I asked to join their groups... but the replies and pseudo-promises of positions faded with the more and more silent phone each day.
And when I started applying for jobs, I discovered my hierarchy of management had been laid off too (except for my direct manager) and they were the ones who knew most my work and accomplishments. I had no way to find where they'd gone, an entire portfolio of references vanished in the ether.
So now you can at least see the prism through which I now see the business world... I hope you never have to look through it.
I worked for a company that eventually really didn't "get it".
I hope the best for you and your company and hope your company "gets it" now, and in the future.
Best regards (and sorry for rambling)
p.s. Thanks for the jackscrew assurances.... you're a good man.:-)
This ilk of article is a tired saw, but its frequent appearance here
at slashdot may be a sign of the times, i.e., the problem may be getting worse
(I doubt it's getting better).
The bottom line is you, as an individual, fend for yourself first and foremost.
If IT is messed up, management doesn't seem to care, or know how to do their job(s)
that's not something you can fix. Decide what you want and need, weigh those criteria
against what you experience in your job and management. If it's bad, it's unlikely
to improve (much).
You, as an employee, owe the company little other than doing the work expected of
you. (I used to be much more gung ho pro-company... but that's another and long
story.) Businesses today don't view employees as valuable resources, nor do they
care what upheaval they toss employees' ways. If you want something from your
job and they say okay, get it in writing. Be suspicious. Be paranoia. The next
visit to your desk from your manager may be a stroll to the front door.
Most companies aren't interested in grooming, triggers, etc., they're interested
in their bottom line. Unfortunately they don't (typically) associate healthy
career paths and directions with business performance. That you've been
"tasked" (hate that word) by joining the CIOs task force is scant evidence
of addressing the problem (I know, people will ask "what else do you expect
them to do?"). But a company that doesn't "get it" isn't going to "get it" by
organizing some CIO appointed task force.
As I mentioned, I used to have more faith in business and companies. Under the
auspices of cutting costs, improving the bottom line, "right-sizing", (and very
little mention of better customer service), articles are popping up almost
every day about companies "making adjustments", but if you read a bit closer and
between some of the lines, there are a whole lot of bent-over employees being
victimized in these scenarios.
I'd be inclined to be more sympathetic and say "business is business" and
companies have to make hard decisions, but when a recent article showed the
average ratio of pay for CEOs compared to their employees increased to
431 times (did you hear that?, 431 times!) the pay of
their employees it started to feel wrong (actually it'd started to feel wrong
quite a while ago). When CEOs are getting this disproportianately higher compensation
than their employees, I expect better performance numbers from businesses. I haven't
seen that.
Aside: Heads up, since you've joined an airline... make sure you keep the
jackscrews lubed!)
I used to work for a large company.
This company, like all
large companies, runs its business with myriad systems. For security, we had rules
around managing passwords: how long they lasted; how they expired; etc. (At one
point there was a 13 rule list that dictated criteria for passwords.)
One Monday morning we came back to work to a massively failed system. I don't
remember which one it was, and it wasn't a system that gave access to customer
information, but it was one all employees used.
The system was restored but the failure lost all passwords. All employees were
instructed to log in with the default password and change it.
The default password was (for 50,000 employees) "1234".
When large new systems like this one wreak this much havoc, I think lessons learned need to be disseminated to the entire industry.
I've seen many interesting posts about why Australia failed in this new system, but it's mostly conjecture. They should (and I'm guessing, will) conduct a deep and thorough post-mortem and find out what went wrong, down to the lines of code, scheduling decisions, rollout decisions, etc.
And (here's the controversial part) they should provide every single document to the public.
When projects gone amok have international impacts like this one why can't the rest of the industry learn from the mistakes by having access to the post-mortem. Involved companies want to maintain control of their Intellectual Propert, but in cases like this, EVERYTHING should be made public. Actually at this point companies involved really aren't protecting IP, but would be hiding behind that canard to deflect the embarrassment of public scrutiny.
Many similar failures wrought similar havoc. Denver International Airport (DIA) spent millions (don't remember exact numbers, but I'm guessing it was in the $100's of millions) of dollars for their dramatically failed automatic baggage handling system. Today DIA not only handles baggage the old fashioned way (carts and tow-tractors), they have to do it through too-small tunnels not designed for the task because of the hubris of the project they wouldn't need to.
So, for now, all we have is conjecture from government officials and slashdotters, one demographic of which already shows some deep insights and possible explanations. But that's all we have.
I hope cause and effect is investigated, and I hope the IT industry gets the opportunity to understand the failures and learn from them.
Disclaimer: posting on slashdot is a hard habit to break... I can't stop.
Interesting article, but a little thin on details. But if true in some ways
I sigh in relief cuz it helps explain:
why I always jump to make an early slashdot post
why I always used bulleted lists in my posts (check it out!)
why "You" always mod me troll or flamebait
dupes
why I edit everything with vi(m)
why crime show dramas beget crime show dramas (just how many nights a week
are
CSI and Law and Order on these days?)
why the Yankees are a perennial playoff team
why the Cubs never make the World Series
why Larry King marries wife #X
why Donald Trump fires Apprentice #X
why Steve Ballmer throws chairs across the room
why Bob Dylan mumbles instead of sings (kidding)
why people wait at all costs and discomfort to get home and take a dump
Another mystery solved perhaps.
My followup question is, is it possible to break these patterns, ever? Or are
we destined for eternity to be creatures of our own habits? Should we stop buying
self-help books?
I once almost collided with Pat Schroeder crossing the street in downtown
Denver. Maybe I should have (we were both on foot, btw).
I'm surprised Pat Schroeder is involved with or leading the charge in attempts
to throttle Google. She offers tepid reasoning (probably not enough prep time
spent with handlers) (from the article) :
if Google can make digital copies of the books, ANYONE can make digital
copies. (duh). So, exactly what it the concern about this? I haven't heard of
any pirating of books. And, people have been making copies of books forever. Guess
what?, copying a book would far EXCEED the cost of buying one!
She argued that Google's plan to have libraries scan the full text
of books goes far beyond the analogy of creating a digital version of
a card catalogue, pointing out that "If Google wants a card catalogue
they can scan the book's front page for full bibliographic data."
She's right! This does go far beyond creating a digital version of
a card catalog! Google's super-sized revved up digital card catalog qualifies
as a godsend to the publishing industry.
The ability to do Google indexed book searches will spur reading, and sales, not
muffle it. How many slashdot readers have been thankful for the Amazon.com feature
of letting you peek inside their books? Many times this has been the feature
giving me the final nudge to buy (though there also have been times where that
nudged me the other direction).
When people start "discovering" books with Google's book searches, the
very worst thing that would happen would be that people would be briefly
exposed to books they otherwise might not have. But for "searchers" who find an
interesting book, they won't be ripping the publishers off by printing (stealing)
or downloading (stealing) these books, since Google isn't offering that as an option.
And assuming for the moment some figure out how to download a copy, they're left
with a book on their computer... not convenient to read (e-books, still on respirator),
and way too expensive to print (and aesthetically "not a book").
So, the most likely result would be a library visit, or purchase.
Yeah, I typed the post up in a big hurry and cringed as I typed the acronyms. I try to avoid that, or use what it stands for at least once first. Sorry about that.:-)
First, I need to (and wish I could somehow propogate this better) for the record emphasize and clarify my excellent relationship with my manager. We both gave as good as we got from each other and respected each other. He gladly and without prompting rewarded me for good work done well many times. But this was a case, as you pointed out, where his job was to make sure corporate procedure and policy prevailed. I still think he was harsh, and maybe even a little wrong on this one, but he was (and to this day is) a good guy and did try to do the right thing.
To your other point, I agree, excellent point that it has got to drive a manager crazy when an employee sets off on his own, doing "extra" work. In this situation, (and I was considered a manager, technically, and expected to show appropriate behavior) the extra work needed to correct the "other" problem was less work and time than it would have taken to go through any process.... unilateral on my part, but NONE of my tasks or responsibilities were compromised... AND (I think I mentioned this in one of my posts) I ensured my deliverable was the deliverable they expected with the option of considering the other fix (which is why I forked the code... to allow for either choice, with no contamination to the original work).
The final result was a much better relationship with the clients.
Ultimately, your points are correct and well made. My disappointment was what at the time felt like excessive pedantry and strict policy adherence.
I would embrace T-FA. I have never (as far as I know) been victim of
identity theft, or fraud and for that I'm grateful. But for modest investment
and great added peace of mind, I look forward to this.
Ironically, in the slashdot article reference to T-FA, the wikipedia gives
as a downside to T-FA:
..., According to proponents, T-FA could drastically reduce the incidence
of online identity theft, and other online fraud, because the victim's
password would no longer be enough to give a thief access to their
information. On the other hand, opponents argue that, (among other things)
should a thief have access to your computer, he can boot-up in such a
way as to bypass the physical authentication processes, scan your system
for all passwords and enter the data manually, thus - at least in this
situation - making T-FA no more secure than the use of a password alone....
I think this actually strengthensstill
does not ensure the intrude has access to one of the two pieces (something you know,
and something you have).
Too, how many (documented) massive identity theft rings are of the "gaining
access to personal computers" ilk? None that I can think of.
For a little more work or inconvenience, I think this adds much security.
need more info, just for curiosity's sake
on
Broadband from Airships
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Wonder what the public reception (pun intended) and reaction will be to the
number of airships necessary to provide complete coverage.
Also, it's not clear since both the slashdot post (quoting accurately from the
article) and the article mention coverage at "..., With each airship
being able to support an area of 60 kilometres...". Ignoring the fact that
kilometres is a measurement of distance not area, what does this mean? Since the
article claims at that coverage they would only need a "handful" or airships to
provide complete coverage I'm going to infer:
by 60 km, they mean either a radius, or diameter, in which case the coverage
of a single aircraft would be either 11,300 sq km, or 2800 sq km respectively. (BTW,
they're going to have to come up with a coverage in the United States that can cover
square miles!)
exactly (or even approximately) how do they quantify a "handful"?
Regardless, I would still be curious if that many craft in the air would be an
eyesore, or something we adapt to. There is anecdotal evidence resistance to these
kinds of things can be quite strong even with benefits to the population (case in
point -- wind farms). (And there is STILL resistance to and legal activity around
where and how cell-towers can be erected.)
(I guess someone's going to have to fill me in on how large a 12,000 cubic meter
balloon appears at 24 kilometers.... let's see, if it were a cube, that would be about
23 meters each side... which is about 65 ft. per side... okay, never mind... smaller
than a jet liner at 78,000 ft... sigh)
For the record (and I haven't responded to the others, but finally, I need to respond to at least one)...:
Ahem, for the record, at the session with the client my manager turned to me and asked me how long I thought it would take. That was when I gave my "estimate". When he chastised me later it was for offering such a short estimate, way too short in his opinion. (I know I didn't make that clear in my original post.) We discussed it, always in a civil manner, I stood by my opinion I could deliver in my estimated time frame but relented to his insistance I double the estimate for an official estimate for our client. I STILL finished in less time than my original estimate (including the fix of the other part of the code).
As for that "other" fix... it wasn't something they had to test -- it was functionality they had long since abandoned as being something useful. It was a "dead zone" (3 lines per item) on the report they had learned to ignore because the data in that zone was incorrect and useless. The fix I applied took little time, and little effort, and did not put at risk the estimated delivery date (the DOUBLED estimate).
We had an ongoing relationship with this client, essentially a locked in deal (their organization was part of the same umbrella corporation). Their list of needs and projects was virtually endless so it wasn't as if finishing this in half the time cut into our revenue stream.
And the good will from this extra effort was returned in full. Our relationship with the client went from adversarial to collaborative. They LOVED the results they were seeing, and changed their attitude and demeanor with us. (They literally used to sit in meetings with scowls and arms crossed, distrusting every suggestion, estimate, etc. we proposed.)
All in all, I was quite surprised at the beating I got for my post. Not so much that I got beat up, but that these attitudes are so pervasive. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough to give enough insight to my environment. But, I believed then, and I believe now the sum total of how we all do is a result of how hard we try to do good things, not how hard we try to maximize "controls".
(example: a while back I drove to a tire service store well known for its service -- I'd never been there before. I had a low-speed wobbly steering wheel problem. I pulled into the lot, and they literally ran out to my car (an advertised "service philosophy" of theirs, but a surprise to see it as real) and asked me what they could do for me. I described my problem, they took my key and immediately put my car on a lift and did some quick diagnostics. After some tweaks and adjustments they returned my car and told me it should be better... and if there were any problems, to bring it back. No Charge! And, the steering wobble was gone!
Less than a year later I needed new tires -- guess where I bought my new tires? The good will they brought more than offset the $50 I could've save at Costco... I'm a loyal customer.
Well, from your narrative I see you've landed the ultimateprofessional progammer position: one where management doesn't listen,
tries to squeeze deadlines, and thinks code more than anything else has to
be correct (the unfortunate thing about that being your management, the
least qualified to say, probably defines correct.)
And, forgive me, I can't help but notice but the word client
or customer is not mentioned even once in the narrative
which indicates an upside down world for delivering applications (not all that
unusual, but still upside down).
Also, you mention superiors, try to be a little less humble, they're
likely not. And, you talk about "upper management". When upper management has
their uncalloused little fingers all the way down to your level in determining
quality,....
Ultimately, unless you have some strong ties, or visions of fast advancement
you'd be no worse off if you looked around a little to see if there is someplace
that seems a little more attuned to the real world and a little less pedantic about
"coding".
aside: (but related) I first encountered how crazy a world it could
be with my first big assignment. I had to sit down with my manager, and our client.
The client described what they wanted, and I gave a thumbnail estimate, apparently
to the surprise of my manager. Surprise number 1: my manager took me into "the
room" and told me never to give an estimate to the client without
his approval. (I might agree with certain aspects of this, but I was confident
of my estimate and had sort of figured it was part of my responsibility.) He wanted
me to double my estimate, and that was what we would base our charge to the client on.
I finished the project ahead of my original estimate -- adding enhancements
and extensions to some software we'd purchased from a sister telcom. When I delivered
it to the clients, ahead of schedule, I pointed out that part of the original output
of the original program was just garbage, i.e., there was no code written
around that output, and it had no correlation to the rest of the report. The client
knew already and told me they always just ignored that part of the report. I asked if
they needed or wanted that part of the report, and their eyes just lit up. So
I offered to deliver yet a different version of my code which included a fix for the
broken part of the old application. The client was ecstatic, a glowing letter ensued.
My manager took me to "the room" again. I tried to remain calm, waiting for the
accolades, perhaps even a bonus? But, he pointed his finger in my face and said,
"Don't you ever deliver more to the client than you say you
will!". Stunned silence.
Exactly how is this bad for the affiliate stations? For a nano
second I can't imagine this didn't help these affiliates. How
much you wanna bet the viewership was up for the episode of Lostfollowing
the announcement of the video iPod? Peoples' normal reactions would
be along the lines of:
What is so special about Lost that Apple actually singled
it out as one of the shows downloadable to their new device? (and, when is it on
so I can watch it, too?)
Oh yeah, Lost! Kind of forgot about that show. I think maybe I'll watch
it again.
(and for the consumers "stolen" from the affiliates): I so thoroughly
enjoyed watching Lost on my iPod, I really need to sit down with the family
and watch it on a real system.
I don't think any of the above are off-the-scale guesses of peoples' reactions
and I think the viewership because of the video iPod could actually
increase!
But, let's assume the death star, end-of-the-universe scenario the affiliates and
others see this as. They see this as a threat rather than an extension. So,
if it is true, boo-hoo!
Thank goodness the lobbyists and power brokers circling the wagons today for
the hapless industry wasn't present in the late 19th and early 20th century
to protect the horse and buggy industry in the same way... We'd have no cars
today (since that would have threatened the established travel industry).
(So, for the record, does anyone know what the comparison was for
Lost pre- vs. post-video iPod announcement? I don't really care, but it'd be
interesting to know.)
Re:hats off to Bram, Bill Joy, and ATT
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I agree, there are more to thank. I was using "ed" when I was introduced to "sc". And I even used qed.
And, did you read, and do you still have your copy of that BSD book, kind of a paperback (with the plastic spine binding), with all of the papers (an odd book, but one of the most useful I'd ever read), including lots of good stuff on nroff, etc? There were more than one, but the one I'm thinking of had a cartoon of a devil (if I remember correctly) poking at "unix" with his trident from behind a rock. Great book. (Now I'm going to have to go find it -- I know I never threw that one away.)
hats off to Bram, Bill Joy, and ATT
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Sometimes I think Bram Moolenaar doesn't get enough credit for what he's
done almost single-handedly. vim is an amazing piece of software. I've
been using it almost since the day it arrived, and I was a vi user who thought
vi was everything. But Bram brought vim and immediately began carefully, but
boldly, extending vi, without the constraints of waiting for POSIX standards
anointing any changes to vi.
Credit to Bill Joy also (and to AT&T, for "sc") for the pre-cursors and
inspirations for vim.
vi in and of itself is a workhorse with its philosophy of "no gui
or mouse necessary", and while vim now has its gui rendition (I never use
it), the underlying philosophy and principles remain intact. Color syntax alone
is worth it. If you haven't tried vim, you should. For raw and pure editing, there's
nothing better (don't flame me, emacs people... please). I've often challenged
people to editing faceoffs... where I'd dialup at 1200 baud (yes, I've been around
for a while), and they could use ANY editor, at any connection speed, and I'd
beat them at making a set of edits against a file.)
(Aside: how many vi users out there have spuriously put "www, jjj, bbb, G
" in their comments when they used the browser text widgets.)
you still have to manage your own time
on
Meet The Life Hackers
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
One of the most valuable one-day seminars I attended talked about some of these things. Basically (and though I didn't always adhere), the gist is no matter what the potential interruptions, you map your day and set your own schedule. If something is important enough for immediate interruption you will discover that soon enough.
Some of the highlights included:
when you set your schedule for the day, block out an hour for yourself... that will show as "unavailable" to anyone trying for your time. (It doesn't have to be an hour, and it doesn't have to be every day, but it gives you a block of time to handle things you want to do without interruption.)
put your briefcase or purse (or SOMETHING) on the "guest" chair in your cubicle (or office). This proved one of the biggest improvements in my control of my day. People have a tendency to see an empty chair as an invitation. In a ten year span, I'll bet I only had ONE person who actually walked in, moved my briefcase without asking, and sat down.
As for determining whether to immediately respond to e-mail or phone calls, these today pretty much provide the interface to allow you to at least filter at the "arrival" moment, e.g., an e-mail client that enunciates the "sender" and the subject, or caller-id on the phone indicates if it's someone you NEED to answer.
Yeah, but I still wanted the readers to think a bit... hopefully some slashdot readers are capable of SOME abstraction... besides, maybe some of the lesser famous and visited ones are...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of points: I can't stress enough achieving fluency in your editor of choice. Create a sample file, write down a list of changes, navigations, etc. and DO THEM ad nauseum... until it's second nature. The last thing you want in programming is the noise that is editing.
Also, learning debugging techniques is off-the-scale important. I was the pariah on a team I worked with because I fell a few days behing on some "assignments". The team was incredibly hostile. I was new to the environment and was spending up-front time learning the debugger of the environment. The team demanded I use print statements and I refused. Within a week (when I had caught up), team members asked how I was doing things looking over my shoulder. I soon had the rest of the team using the debugger and establishing that as the standard (I know, I know, what kind of team was that in the first place???, no comment).
Good comment and good insight. I didn't intend my original post as flamebait, and I didn't mean it as "America first". I have received heat on my post, probably after re-reading my original post, deservedly.
I stand by my thoughts I don't see the internet as it run today as being broken. I would stand hand in hand with complainants if the United States were to do something stupid unilaterally with the internet "configuration". I would hope it wouldn't but as you validly point out it wouldn't be the first time.
I do think the internet is a unique animal though in that it has become such a prevalent environment that to mess with its status quo could do more damage to the United States than would be worth any changes.
I guess ulitmately I don't see the situation as broken and I cringe to see unbroken things fixed.
Thanks for the comments (and I don't take them personally.. :-) )
Hmmm, I read your first paragraph and see that your method of discourse includes ad hominem attacks.
I won't question your intellect, I assume you are plenty intelligent.
Your cars analogy is an interesting one among others that have been suggested to me (in varying levels of animosity). But the internet is a trickier entity to define and label the same way as cars.
You are correct the internet is the internet. But I'm not getting the point (and since you're indicating this is from a lack of intelligence) maybe you could educate me as to how the DNS servers dramatically (or at all) as running today limit or hinder other sovereignties from effectively using the internet. How are others stopped from doing business on the internet?
Ultimately I don't really care who controls the DNS servers as long as they're run reliably. I guess in that sense I could argue I don't understand why the United States cares if others control that.
To your point, the internet IS the internet, it is larger than the United States, it is an electronic fabric connecting e-communications. No matter WHO would exercise stewardship over the DNS, doing so in a way that hindered internet progress and use would create such a backlash, I don't think it would make much difference who owned it.
As for me being an idiot... sigh.
Oh boy, I seem to be taking lots o' heat for my original post. I didn't mean it as flame, nor was I trying to impugn anyone's ability to help manage the internet. I mostly was trying to say that in the larger picture of things needing fixing, I don't see this as something broken, and I cringe when I see unbroken things fixed.
And, re your analogy, the rest of the world seems to continue to use the internet unencumbered (reasonably). Is there something seriously awry with world access to the internet?
Anyway, not meant to inflame, probably a bit more pithy than I should have been.
regards, yagu
How did this ever even become a controversy? Isn't the internet as we know it an outgrowth and result of DARPA work? And didn't the internet essentially grow from those efforts and work?
This feels like envy and jealousy, the United States created a neat and shiny toy unnoticed by the world until it "became" the internet, and now the rest of the world wants some stewardship, whether it is warranted or not (in my opinion, not).
I don't think the U.S. is the wisest and most sage about everything, but seriously, what is considered the risk here for it maintaining stewardship. It may have misstepped once or twice but empirical evidence suggests competent management (note I didn't say the "best"), and I haven't seen any contraindications to the detriment of the rest of the world.
I think some of the threats made by the U.N., et. al., in these attempts to wrest the internet from the United States are misguided, immmature, and more seriously jeapordize the cohesive internet world wide as we know it today.
(Meanwhile, has anyone peeked at the ozone hole lately?)
Hello fbg111
Thanks for your clarifications, and for not taking too personally my comments. I'm not surprised at your further comments and hope the best for your future. I'm always pleased for those who navigate the business waters smoothly and gain satisfaction and find success in their careers.
To further clarify my comments, I did generalize but did not intend to stipulate by post your situation was a bad one.
My experiences in the last two years leave me seeing the business landscape through a different prism than before I was laid off after 21 years of what I thought would be a complete career. I've posted many times about my "plight" (though I do not ask for sympathy, I am sorting through and working out my issues in my professional life and expect to eventually be fully on my feet again).
I too worked closely with top level managers and received many choice assignments and was recognized and rewarded handsomely for my work. But around the dotcom bust, our company merged with another, on paper that is.
In reality that other company (much smaller than ours, btw) took control and with the help of a CEO who is now dogged by the legal system, we spiraled into the whirlpool that was the bust. Our stock dropped from over fifty dollars a share to less than two dollars a share. On paper (all of it mature) I lost over $500,000 -- a big hit to my retirement and savings plan.
Our crooked (alleged) CEO was forced out, but walked away with $500,000,000! A bitter pill to swallow, but I resolved to continue and finish my career there and to contribute to my best ability (while somewhat non-traditional, still good stuff based on my reviews, salary, bonuses and stock options).
Eighteen months ago my manager took me into the conference room and told me what I had figured out walking to the room (there had been rumors). Twenty percent of IT gone in one cut. No press releases.
And, I was treated like a criminal. By the time I got to my desk to pick up my personal belongings my login had disappeared and my badge access was disabled. I couldn't immediately go home because I was a bus commuter and there were only three buses in the morning and three in the evening so I had from 9a.m. til 4p.m. to kill before I could head home (I guess they could've hired me a cab, but I'm not even sure there were cabs that would take me the sixty miles to my house).
My manager had someone "watch" me the rest of the day and dropped in a couple times an hour to make sure I wasn't doing anything "wrong" (not to see how I was doing).
Upon departure, while I was supposed to have contact and e-mail for sixty days, because of an IT DNS configuration problem (how ironic is that?) I could not send or receive e-mail for the first forty of those sixty days.
No list of laid off employees was distributed, I could not find out from those still there who was laid off, they did not know themselves.
And while I was "encouraged" to find another position within the company during those sixty days what I wasn't told was the company had put a zero-tolerance hiring freeze in place for that time. This, while I was networking (I still had the phone!) with other directors and managers who were more than pleased when I asked to join their groups... but the replies and pseudo-promises of positions faded with the more and more silent phone each day.
And when I started applying for jobs, I discovered my hierarchy of management had been laid off too (except for my direct manager) and they were the ones who knew most my work and accomplishments. I had no way to find where they'd gone, an entire portfolio of references vanished in the ether.
So now you can at least see the prism through which I now see the business world... I hope you never have to look through it.
I worked for a company that eventually really didn't "get it".
I hope the best for you and your company and hope your company "gets it" now, and in the future.
Best regards (and sorry for rambling)
p.s. Thanks for the jackscrew assurances.... you're a good man. :-)
This ilk of article is a tired saw, but its frequent appearance here at slashdot may be a sign of the times, i.e., the problem may be getting worse (I doubt it's getting better).
The bottom line is you, as an individual, fend for yourself first and foremost. If IT is messed up, management doesn't seem to care, or know how to do their job(s) that's not something you can fix. Decide what you want and need, weigh those criteria against what you experience in your job and management. If it's bad, it's unlikely to improve (much).
You, as an employee, owe the company little other than doing the work expected of you. (I used to be much more gung ho pro-company... but that's another and long story.) Businesses today don't view employees as valuable resources, nor do they care what upheaval they toss employees' ways. If you want something from your job and they say okay, get it in writing. Be suspicious. Be paranoia. The next visit to your desk from your manager may be a stroll to the front door.
Most companies aren't interested in grooming, triggers, etc., they're interested in their bottom line. Unfortunately they don't (typically) associate healthy career paths and directions with business performance. That you've been "tasked" (hate that word) by joining the CIOs task force is scant evidence of addressing the problem (I know, people will ask "what else do you expect them to do?"). But a company that doesn't "get it" isn't going to "get it" by organizing some CIO appointed task force.
As I mentioned, I used to have more faith in business and companies. Under the auspices of cutting costs, improving the bottom line, "right-sizing", (and very little mention of better customer service), articles are popping up almost every day about companies "making adjustments", but if you read a bit closer and between some of the lines, there are a whole lot of bent-over employees being victimized in these scenarios.
I'd be inclined to be more sympathetic and say "business is business" and companies have to make hard decisions, but when a recent article showed the average ratio of pay for CEOs compared to their employees increased to 431 times (did you hear that?, 431 times!) the pay of their employees it started to feel wrong (actually it'd started to feel wrong quite a while ago). When CEOs are getting this disproportianately higher compensation than their employees, I expect better performance numbers from businesses. I haven't seen that. Aside: Heads up, since you've joined an airline... make sure you keep the jackscrews lubed!)
(and actually, I pointed out it was "eminent", not "imminent", the "emminent" was interstitial.
I used to work for a large company. This company, like all large companies, runs its business with myriad systems. For security, we had rules around managing passwords: how long they lasted; how they expired; etc. (At one point there was a 13 rule list that dictated criteria for passwords.)
One Monday morning we came back to work to a massively failed system. I don't remember which one it was, and it wasn't a system that gave access to customer information, but it was one all employees used.
The system was restored but the failure lost all passwords. All employees were instructed to log in with the default password and change it.
The default password was (for 50,000 employees) "1234".
When large new systems like this one wreak this much havoc, I think lessons learned need to be disseminated to the entire industry.
I've seen many interesting posts about why Australia failed in this new system, but it's mostly conjecture. They should (and I'm guessing, will) conduct a deep and thorough post-mortem and find out what went wrong, down to the lines of code, scheduling decisions, rollout decisions, etc.
And (here's the controversial part) they should provide every single document to the public.
When projects gone amok have international impacts like this one why can't the rest of the industry learn from the mistakes by having access to the post-mortem. Involved companies want to maintain control of their Intellectual Propert, but in cases like this, EVERYTHING should be made public. Actually at this point companies involved really aren't protecting IP, but would be hiding behind that canard to deflect the embarrassment of public scrutiny.
Many similar failures wrought similar havoc. Denver International Airport (DIA) spent millions (don't remember exact numbers, but I'm guessing it was in the $100's of millions) of dollars for their dramatically failed automatic baggage handling system. Today DIA not only handles baggage the old fashioned way (carts and tow-tractors), they have to do it through too-small tunnels not designed for the task because of the hubris of the project they wouldn't need to.
So, for now, all we have is conjecture from government officials and slashdotters, one demographic of which already shows some deep insights and possible explanations. But that's all we have.
I hope cause and effect is investigated, and I hope the IT industry gets the opportunity to understand the failures and learn from them.
Disclaimer: posting on slashdot is a hard habit to break... I can't stop.
Interesting article, but a little thin on details. But if true in some ways I sigh in relief cuz it helps explain:
Another mystery solved perhaps.
My followup question is, is it possible to break these patterns, ever? Or are we destined for eternity to be creatures of our own habits? Should we stop buying self-help books?
Antipiratbyrån: (panting...) Ain't gonna be no rematch
ISP's: Don't want one. (we won't need one!)
ISP's: Adrian!
file sharers: Rocky!
ISP's: Adrian!
file sharers: Rocky!
ISP's: Adrian!
file sharers: Rocky!
I once almost collided with Pat Schroeder crossing the street in downtown Denver. Maybe I should have (we were both on foot, btw).
I'm surprised Pat Schroeder is involved with or leading the charge in attempts to throttle Google. She offers tepid reasoning (probably not enough prep time spent with handlers) (from the article) :
She's right! This does go far beyond creating a digital version of a card catalog! Google's super-sized revved up digital card catalog qualifies as a godsend to the publishing industry.
The ability to do Google indexed book searches will spur reading, and sales, not muffle it. How many slashdot readers have been thankful for the Amazon.com feature of letting you peek inside their books? Many times this has been the feature giving me the final nudge to buy (though there also have been times where that nudged me the other direction).
When people start "discovering" books with Google's book searches, the very worst thing that would happen would be that people would be briefly exposed to books they otherwise might not have. But for "searchers" who find an interesting book, they won't be ripping the publishers off by printing (stealing) or downloading (stealing) these books, since Google isn't offering that as an option.
And assuming for the moment some figure out how to download a copy, they're left with a book on their computer... not convenient to read (e-books, still on respirator), and way too expensive to print (and aesthetically "not a book").
So, the most likely result would be a library visit, or purchase.
Come on Pat!, think again.
LOL (that's "laugh out loud")
Yeah, I typed the post up in a big hurry and cringed as I typed the acronyms. I try to avoid that, or use what it stands for at least once first. Sorry about that. :-)
-yagu
Hello mooingyak
First, I need to (and wish I could somehow propogate this better) for the record emphasize and clarify my excellent relationship with my manager. We both gave as good as we got from each other and respected each other. He gladly and without prompting rewarded me for good work done well many times. But this was a case, as you pointed out, where his job was to make sure corporate procedure and policy prevailed. I still think he was harsh, and maybe even a little wrong on this one, but he was (and to this day is) a good guy and did try to do the right thing.
To your other point, I agree, excellent point that it has got to drive a manager crazy when an employee sets off on his own, doing "extra" work. In this situation, (and I was considered a manager, technically, and expected to show appropriate behavior) the extra work needed to correct the "other" problem was less work and time than it would have taken to go through any process.... unilateral on my part, but NONE of my tasks or responsibilities were compromised... AND (I think I mentioned this in one of my posts) I ensured my deliverable was the deliverable they expected with the option of considering the other fix (which is why I forked the code... to allow for either choice, with no contamination to the original work).
The final result was a much better relationship with the clients.
Ultimately, your points are correct and well made. My disappointment was what at the time felt like excessive pedantry and strict policy adherence.
Best Regards... yagu
I would embrace T-FA. I have never (as far as I know) been victim of identity theft, or fraud and for that I'm grateful. But for modest investment and great added peace of mind, I look forward to this.
Ironically, in the slashdot article reference to T-FA, the wikipedia gives as a downside to T-FA:
I think this actually strengthensstill does not ensure the intrude has access to one of the two pieces (something you know, and something you have).
Too, how many (documented) massive identity theft rings are of the "gaining access to personal computers" ilk? None that I can think of.
For a little more work or inconvenience, I think this adds much security.
Wonder what the public reception (pun intended) and reaction will be to the number of airships necessary to provide complete coverage.
Also, it's not clear since both the slashdot post (quoting accurately from the article) and the article mention coverage at "..., With each airship being able to support an area of 60 kilometres...". Ignoring the fact that kilometres is a measurement of distance not area, what does this mean? Since the article claims at that coverage they would only need a "handful" or airships to provide complete coverage I'm going to infer:
Regardless, I would still be curious if that many craft in the air would be an eyesore, or something we adapt to. There is anecdotal evidence resistance to these kinds of things can be quite strong even with benefits to the population (case in point -- wind farms). (And there is STILL resistance to and legal activity around where and how cell-towers can be erected.)
(I guess someone's going to have to fill me in on how large a 12,000 cubic meter balloon appears at 24 kilometers.... let's see, if it were a cube, that would be about 23 meters each side... which is about 65 ft. per side... okay, never mind... smaller than a jet liner at 78,000 ft... sigh)
For the record (and I haven't responded to the others, but finally, I need to respond to at least one)...:
Ahem, for the record, at the session with the client my manager turned to me and asked me how long I thought it would take. That was when I gave my "estimate". When he chastised me later it was for offering such a short estimate, way too short in his opinion. (I know I didn't make that clear in my original post.) We discussed it, always in a civil manner, I stood by my opinion I could deliver in my estimated time frame but relented to his insistance I double the estimate for an official estimate for our client. I STILL finished in less time than my original estimate (including the fix of the other part of the code).
As for that "other" fix... it wasn't something they had to test -- it was functionality they had long since abandoned as being something useful. It was a "dead zone" (3 lines per item) on the report they had learned to ignore because the data in that zone was incorrect and useless. The fix I applied took little time, and little effort, and did not put at risk the estimated delivery date (the DOUBLED estimate).
We had an ongoing relationship with this client, essentially a locked in deal (their organization was part of the same umbrella corporation). Their list of needs and projects was virtually endless so it wasn't as if finishing this in half the time cut into our revenue stream.
And the good will from this extra effort was returned in full. Our relationship with the client went from adversarial to collaborative. They LOVED the results they were seeing, and changed their attitude and demeanor with us. (They literally used to sit in meetings with scowls and arms crossed, distrusting every suggestion, estimate, etc. we proposed.)
All in all, I was quite surprised at the beating I got for my post. Not so much that I got beat up, but that these attitudes are so pervasive. Maybe I didn't elaborate enough to give enough insight to my environment. But, I believed then, and I believe now the sum total of how we all do is a result of how hard we try to do good things, not how hard we try to maximize "controls".
(example: a while back I drove to a tire service store well known for its service -- I'd never been there before. I had a low-speed wobbly steering wheel problem. I pulled into the lot, and they literally ran out to my car (an advertised "service philosophy" of theirs, but a surprise to see it as real) and asked me what they could do for me. I described my problem, they took my key and immediately put my car on a lift and did some quick diagnostics. After some tweaks and adjustments they returned my car and told me it should be better... and if there were any problems, to bring it back. No Charge! And, the steering wobble was gone!
Less than a year later I needed new tires -- guess where I bought my new tires? The good will they brought more than offset the $50 I could've save at Costco... I'm a loyal customer.
Well, from your narrative I see you've landed the ultimate professional progammer position: one where management doesn't listen, tries to squeeze deadlines, and thinks code more than anything else has to be correct (the unfortunate thing about that being your management, the least qualified to say, probably defines correct.)
And, forgive me, I can't help but notice but the word client or customer is not mentioned even once in the narrative which indicates an upside down world for delivering applications (not all that unusual, but still upside down).
Also, you mention superiors, try to be a little less humble, they're likely not. And, you talk about "upper management". When upper management has their uncalloused little fingers all the way down to your level in determining quality, ....
Ultimately, unless you have some strong ties, or visions of fast advancement you'd be no worse off if you looked around a little to see if there is someplace that seems a little more attuned to the real world and a little less pedantic about "coding".
aside: (but related) I first encountered how crazy a world it could be with my first big assignment. I had to sit down with my manager, and our client. The client described what they wanted, and I gave a thumbnail estimate, apparently to the surprise of my manager. Surprise number 1: my manager took me into "the room" and told me never to give an estimate to the client without his approval. (I might agree with certain aspects of this, but I was confident of my estimate and had sort of figured it was part of my responsibility.) He wanted me to double my estimate, and that was what we would base our charge to the client on.
I finished the project ahead of my original estimate -- adding enhancements and extensions to some software we'd purchased from a sister telcom. When I delivered it to the clients, ahead of schedule, I pointed out that part of the original output of the original program was just garbage, i.e., there was no code written around that output, and it had no correlation to the rest of the report. The client knew already and told me they always just ignored that part of the report. I asked if they needed or wanted that part of the report, and their eyes just lit up. So I offered to deliver yet a different version of my code which included a fix for the broken part of the old application. The client was ecstatic, a glowing letter ensued.
My manager took me to "the room" again. I tried to remain calm, waiting for the accolades, perhaps even a bonus? But, he pointed his finger in my face and said, "Don't you ever deliver more to the client than you say you will!". Stunned silence.
Sometimes I want to pull my hair out!
Exactly how is this bad for the affiliate stations? For a nano second I can't imagine this didn't help these affiliates. How much you wanna bet the viewership was up for the episode of Lost following the announcement of the video iPod? Peoples' normal reactions would be along the lines of:
I don't think any of the above are off-the-scale guesses of peoples' reactions and I think the viewership because of the video iPod could actually increase!
But, let's assume the death star, end-of-the-universe scenario the affiliates and others see this as. They see this as a threat rather than an extension. So, if it is true, boo-hoo!
Thank goodness the lobbyists and power brokers circling the wagons today for the hapless industry wasn't present in the late 19th and early 20th century to protect the horse and buggy industry in the same way... We'd have no cars today (since that would have threatened the established travel industry).
(So, for the record, does anyone know what the comparison was for Lost pre- vs. post-video iPod announcement? I don't really care, but it'd be interesting to know.)
Yes, I agree, there are more to thank. I was using "ed" when I was introduced to "sc". And I even used qed.
And, did you read, and do you still have your copy of that BSD book, kind of a paperback (with the plastic spine binding), with all of the papers (an odd book, but one of the most useful I'd ever read), including lots of good stuff on nroff, etc? There were more than one, but the one I'm thinking of had a cartoon of a devil (if I remember correctly) poking at "unix" with his trident from behind a rock. Great book. (Now I'm going to have to go find it -- I know I never threw that one away.)
Sometimes I think Bram Moolenaar doesn't get enough credit for what he's done almost single-handedly. vim is an amazing piece of software. I've been using it almost since the day it arrived, and I was a vi user who thought vi was everything. But Bram brought vim and immediately began carefully, but boldly, extending vi, without the constraints of waiting for POSIX standards anointing any changes to vi.
Credit to Bill Joy also (and to AT&T, for "sc") for the pre-cursors and inspirations for vim.
vi in and of itself is a workhorse with its philosophy of "no gui or mouse necessary", and while vim now has its gui rendition (I never use it), the underlying philosophy and principles remain intact. Color syntax alone is worth it. If you haven't tried vim, you should. For raw and pure editing, there's nothing better (don't flame me, emacs people... please). I've often challenged people to editing faceoffs... where I'd dialup at 1200 baud (yes, I've been around for a while), and they could use ANY editor, at any connection speed, and I'd beat them at making a set of edits against a file.)
(Aside: how many vi users out there have spuriously put "www, jjj, bbb, G " in their comments when they used the browser text widgets.)
One of the most valuable one-day seminars I attended talked about some of these things. Basically (and though I didn't always adhere), the gist is no matter what the potential interruptions, you map your day and set your own schedule. If something is important enough for immediate interruption you will discover that soon enough.
Some of the highlights included:
As for determining whether to immediately respond to e-mail or phone calls, these today pretty much provide the interface to allow you to at least filter at the "arrival" moment, e.g., an e-mail client that enunciates the "sender" and the subject, or caller-id on the phone indicates if it's someone you NEED to answer.
Yeah, but I still wanted the readers to think a bit... hopefully some slashdot readers are capable of SOME abstraction... besides, maybe some of the lesser famous and visited ones are ... :-)
Let not Horus weep for me.
The answer(s) can be found in Egypt.