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.
It's been my experience that this type of thing is simply a talking point. By organizing a committee/task force/other_buzzword, it gives the impression something is happening since all these wonderous ideas will get floated around a nice stack of papers in the form a report will end up on someone's desk and floating around by email. Unfortunately, 1/5 of the people who should read it won't because they have too many other things to be working on and of those 1/5 who do it will be very unlikely that someone in that bunch will do something or has the power to do something. All the while your CIO/high level manager can tell all other high level managers "We have a task force charged with reporting to us $XYZ analysis. Aren't I doing a good job".
If this were a high priority to your CIO, he/she would interview some key folks, including a few of you developer/admin types and then take action immediately instead of forming some bureaucratic committee who generates a report that gets debated on by management for months.
My 2cents at least. Sorry if I sound negative, but I just find committees to be an utter waste of everyone's time and really just a facade for the person who calls for it.
I'm going to play devil's advocate, and it may be based on an ignorant assumption of mine, but here goes anyway:
As I understood it, the initial cost of laying down this infrastructure is massive to the organizations who do it. As such, once they've setup their infrastructure they can then offer their service to paying customers over whom they have a local monopoly. However, if multiple organizations were to place down dual infrastructures to lay claim to an area they are a) doing duplicated unnecessary work and b) will not have a monopoly on the local customers. I've heard it said, and it may just be FUD from the ISP's, but if multiple broadband ISP's (ignore the fact DSL and cable can be available in two places) were to compete in the same region then prices would be driven down in competition to a point to where the providers costs in laying in the infrastructure down are not going to be made up in profit. As such, there would be no motivation to provide broadband and we would still stuck with dialup.
*shrug* Let me know if I'm off base here. I'm curious to learn more about this.
Would you please enlighten us as to what it is like to wear one of these penny arcade T-Shits out in public? I'm sure everyone is eager to walk up close to you and talk to you with one of those on.
In the context of this conversation, whiteboard was meant to be a physical whiteboard with a dry erase marker mounted at the front of a class.
I don't know if Ivy League schools or top class technical schools are offering work-from-home degrees, but I know alot of state supported public institutions are. For example, see the UNC systems listing of all remote learning and fully online programs: http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/aa/distan ce/index.htm
I don't forsee current shareholders giving a flying hoot about individuals leaving as long as the bottom line numbers remain prosperous... and you know as well as I that with all the successful product lines and forced upgrades, the bottom line isn't going to turn south anytime in the interim future.
In fact, MS shareholders should be happier than ever since they just recently received a whopping dividend payment.
Of course, as an individual investor, I wouldn't buy Microsoft for a long term investment for the very reasons you stated. Its potential for growth isn't attractive any longer either.
It's somewhat difficult to use a blackboard/whiteboard with writing utensils when your students are 30+ years old, living hundreds of miles away, and have full time jobs. Part of the attractiveness of an online learning management system is the asynchronous instruction it can enable to students enrolled in distance education.
Remember: Kern = real good at math and science. You will have cause to forget that fact very soon.
I had three options for a chemistry class: the intro course, the accelerated course, and the genius course. My high school chemistry background made me a good fit for the accelerated course, but my academic advisor warned me not to take it.
Academic advisors are there for a reason. They get paid to fit you into the classes that you need to take. When an advisor tells you not to take a class, they are basing that advice off of seeing the experience of other students in similar situtations. And just because you had umpteen honors and a 4.0 gpa in high school does not mean you can waltz into ANY college course and expect to do well. It's a matter of swallowing your pride and taking those foundation courses. Even if you've had simiilar material in high school, the refesher will be good, you WILL learn something new, and you will learn how to learn on your own - a skill that isn't learned in high school and a skill you don't want to have to gain while taking a "turbo" class.
It seems like Linus (or his lawyers rather) want to protect the Linux trademark. Hypthetically speaking, if I had a product titled Lunix Utilities, I wouldn't seem to fall under that trademark use. However, if my company or product name was MikeRoweSoft or Lindows, Microsoft could and would sue me.
*Shrug* It's a pretty hairy issue. I see where Linus or his lawyers are coming from, but I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.
But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? We trash MS a lot for tossing its weight around with trademarks and filing for silly patents, but here we have a direct competitor who blindly fires off an illegitimate lawsuit against free speech journalism. In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?
Not to sound like a fanboy, but this what is attractive about Linux. There's no organization, good or bad, that I'm directly supporting by using it as my computer OS. Trust me, I think Tiger might be the best user-centric OS by miles, but Apple as the market leader would frighten me just as much as MS as the market leader and as such, I don't buy their products.
Basically, CNET's article boils down to CS majors wanting to branch out to other disciplines and also how CS research is no longer just about computing but about other problem domains.
I think the reason is very simple: people like to work in private (thus not at school), with things arranged in their own way (thus at home), and with their own software and settings (which school computers often don't allow).
That's actually a good rationale, but you still have to consider that there are a number of homes still without computers, most of whom are low income households. Case in point, I was a collegiate athlete at a university with a computer requirement if you stayed on campus. Out of the 20-30 freshman that came in on our team each year, around 5 had to have a surplus computer donated to them since they didn't own one (and most were on financial aid). Also in rural areas (see GP's reference to Indiana), people, I'm guessing based on previous experience, are much less likely to own a computer. I came from a rural background as well and had several classmates who had to type their senior papers in the school library. Albeit, this was in 1999, but at the time computer prices were dropping drastically.
So to keep this on topic, I would suggest that if you put cheap computers in schools, they will be used. The kids with the same technology at home will forgo it or most likely use it to goof off. But others will use them out of necessity.
Disclaimer: This post is backed by nothing more than my unqualified opinion.
In my experience there is no correlation in what you said about football. Football just happens to attract alpha males who have inferiority complexes and decide to take out their aggression on others to hide that complex. If you look outside of the majority of high school football players and a few binge drinking college players you will find a quite benevolent group of people. Just look at the number of college and pro football players who work through and support charities. Football itself is not a cause of violent behavior. It just happens to be a preferred medium of extra curricular activity for some who are already inconsiderate and pugnacious fools who feel they have to prove themselves on a stage and flex their supposed superiority on others who appear lesser than themselves.
I agree with your argument for the most. However, I own Madden 2005 and have recently rented '06. In doing so, I have noticed small little improvements that go a long way with the more meticulous football fan, such as myself.
For example, the article's aforementioned QB vision light, which is based on the QB awareness rating and determines the field of vision for a QB. You can control this yourself with the right analog stick or focus in on different receivers. Make a pass to someone not in your field of vision and you will make a duck pass. This feature will need some tweaking, but it is one step closer to making the game realistic and prevents previously awseome madden players from exploiting passing the ball all game.
Another small improvement has been in line play. The animations that determine positioning of linemen during the play are improved. Defensive lineman in a 4-3 now finally line up as they are supposed to (in gaps instead of headup), and the ability to slide your offensive line protection, while not perfect, definitely lets you control logic for your lineman that never existed in previous games.
The last one I'll mention are smart routes. In older games. WR's were restricted to predetermined routes based on the play you call, or you could hot route them, but the distance they run in the route is always the same. Now you can make their curl routes and in/out routes go all the way to first down marker. Again, a small improvement, but one that makes the play in this game a bit better.
In all honesty, I think people expect too much of this football game series. There are only so many things you can add each year and each year everyone wants something revolutionary. All I want is steady improvement so that when I play this game in 2015 (assuming it is still being produced) it should be much closer to the real thing. Just look at at how far it has advanced in 1995 to see what I mean.
And if by the time the reach office they will be already be behind the current state of technology and will still not be making fully informed decisions regarding that technology.
"In terms of "boring" positions in football, pretty much the only ones I can think of are the O-line and maybe full back. All defensive positions offer complex gameplay. "
I'll assume you haven't played competetive football. Offensive line requires some of the most complex gameplay in the entire game of football, outdone only by QB's and arguably MLB's and Safeties (since these guys generally have to control the entire defense and be able to tell everyone else what to do). The front 7 in football (DL and LB's) really only comes down to starting out in a certain alignment based on the play/formation and then controlling a gap followed by reading and reacting to a play. The offensive line tends to be much more complex, since there are a great number of rules that affect both blocking assignments and blocking techniques. For example, and without going into great detail, a linebacker walking up on the outside of the line can change the initial blocking assignment along with the technique (footwork, aiming point, etc.) of all 5 offensive lineman - and that change must be communicated across the board in a.5-3 seconds time.
Even without knowning this, next time you watch a football game, take notice of the constant battles that occur between offensive tackles and defensive ends on passing downs. It's easily the most exciting thing that's viewable from television (since you can't see the route runners until after the fact and watching the qb is pretty dull unless he scrambles).
It's personal preference. I prefer what is normally referred to as the "Rock" setting that has high bass, high treble, and a low mid. There is a big difference in the sound between this setting and the default midlevel setting for everything... at least to my ears.
The linux community at large seems to have a strong sentiment in favor of using ogg over mp3. I personally tried ogg but in my media player of choice (xmms) the equalizer had absolutely no effect on ogg files whereas with mp3 files the equalizer worked, thus making the mp3 sound much, much better than the non-equalized (don't know the technical name for it) sound of the ogg file. Does anyone know why this is? Am I missing a good thing by not using ogg or is ogg just hyped up a bit much?
"Even something like football - if you're not the quarterback or a receiver, is it really going to be fun?"
Short answer, yes.
Having other positions non-ai controlled allows more actions to be taken by those positions and I would love nothing more than a football game that lets you take control of a player besides the ball handler. I'm a former football player and nothing pisses me off worse in football games than the lack of depth in the number of actions that an ai controlled position can make, generally lineman. Personally, I would love a football game that would let me take control of an offensive lineman, let me control the way I block (fighting to gain helmet position for leverage, handfighting, sealing, turning out, cutblocking, timing your punch on pass protection, etc. etc.). Of course I'm probably in an extremely small minority here. But nonetheless I personally think playing another position in a fully online football would be fun.
Isn't the whole idea of Gentoo that you compile everything? Isn't the whole idea of a LiveCD that you have a CD that always works that you can quickly test and use?
What Gentoo calls a "LiveCD" is mostly different from what every other distribution refers to as a "LiveCD". It's still a true "LiveCD" in that it is a bootable cd that contains a fully working instance of Gentoo on it. However this working instance of Gentoo is a minimal, command line driven (until this release) instance and its purpose is to give you an environment in which you can begin installing Gentoo from scratch to your hard drive.
Actually I think your post raises a good point. That point being that there is this myth that gentoo takes forver to install. Of course if you try to compile from stage1 on some 333mhz intel celeron, it is going to take the course of a couple days to finish. Conversely, if you start from stage 3 on a very recent machine, you can be up and running in a working environment in ~3 hours, or quite possibly less, assuming you don't use a heavyweight window manager (aka gnome/kde). And keep in mind you always have the option of using binaries instead of compiling from source.
For instance, the gentoo installation was my first experience manually editing fstab, compiling a kernel, editing various files in/etc by hand, so and so forth. Installing gentoo is not so much a learning experience than it is a "frame of mind" changer. It completely forced me out of using gui configs to the point where I now prefer to go edit files by hand. Of course, you could always go edit files by hand in other distributions as well, but gentoo (moreso the gentoo community and documention) is more supportive of it and explains it much better than other distributions that I've seen. (Disclaimer, I haven't used debian, so I can't speak of its community and documentation).
Slashdot Mirror
It's been my experience that this type of thing is simply a talking point. By organizing a committee/task force/other_buzzword, it gives the impression something is happening since all these wonderous ideas will get floated around a nice stack of papers in the form a report will end up on someone's desk and floating around by email. Unfortunately, 1/5 of the people who should read it won't because they have too many other things to be working on and of those 1/5 who do it will be very unlikely that someone in that bunch will do something or has the power to do something. All the while your CIO/high level manager can tell all other high level managers "We have a task force charged with reporting to us $XYZ analysis. Aren't I doing a good job".
If this were a high priority to your CIO, he/she would interview some key folks, including a few of you developer/admin types and then take action immediately instead of forming some bureaucratic committee who generates a report that gets debated on by management for months.
My 2cents at least. Sorry if I sound negative, but I just find committees to be an utter waste of everyone's time and really just a facade for the person who calls for it.
I'm going to play devil's advocate, and it may be based on an ignorant assumption of mine, but here goes anyway:
As I understood it, the initial cost of laying down this infrastructure is massive to the organizations who do it. As such, once they've setup their infrastructure they can then offer their service to paying customers over whom they have a local monopoly. However, if multiple organizations were to place down dual infrastructures to lay claim to an area they are a) doing duplicated unnecessary work and b) will not have a monopoly on the local customers. I've heard it said, and it may just be FUD from the ISP's, but if multiple broadband ISP's (ignore the fact DSL and cable can be available in two places) were to compete in the same region then prices would be driven down in competition to a point to where the providers costs in laying in the infrastructure down are not going to be made up in profit. As such, there would be no motivation to provide broadband and we would still stuck with dialup.
*shrug* Let me know if I'm off base here. I'm curious to learn more about this.
psst - I was making reference to the typo in your subject line :)
Would you please enlighten us as to what it is like to wear one of these penny arcade T-Shits out in public? I'm sure everyone is eager to walk up close to you and talk to you with one of those on.
I don't know if Ivy League schools or top class technical schools are offering work-from-home degrees, but I know alot of state supported public institutions are. For example, see the UNC systems listing of all remote learning and fully online programs: http://www.northcarolina.edu/content.php/aa/distan ce/index.htm
I don't forsee current shareholders giving a flying hoot about individuals leaving as long as the bottom line numbers remain prosperous... and you know as well as I that with all the successful product lines and forced upgrades, the bottom line isn't going to turn south anytime in the interim future.
In fact, MS shareholders should be happier than ever since they just recently received a whopping dividend payment.
Of course, as an individual investor, I wouldn't buy Microsoft for a long term investment for the very reasons you stated. Its potential for growth isn't attractive any longer either.
It's somewhat difficult to use a blackboard/whiteboard with writing utensils when your students are 30+ years old, living hundreds of miles away, and have full time jobs. Part of the attractiveness of an online learning management system is the asynchronous instruction it can enable to students enrolled in distance education.
Remember: Kern = real good at math and science. You will have cause to forget that fact very soon. I had three options for a chemistry class: the intro course, the accelerated course, and the genius course. My high school chemistry background made me a good fit for the accelerated course, but my academic advisor warned me not to take it.
Academic advisors are there for a reason. They get paid to fit you into the classes that you need to take. When an advisor tells you not to take a class, they are basing that advice off of seeing the experience of other students in similar situtations. And just because you had umpteen honors and a 4.0 gpa in high school does not mean you can waltz into ANY college course and expect to do well. It's a matter of swallowing your pride and taking those foundation courses. Even if you've had simiilar material in high school, the refesher will be good, you WILL learn something new, and you will learn how to learn on your own - a skill that isn't learned in high school and a skill you don't want to have to gain while taking a "turbo" class.
And my engy script for "bind e +detdispenser"
http://www.ilaw.com.au/linuxfaq.html/ explains it a bit.
It seems like Linus (or his lawyers rather) want to protect the Linux trademark. Hypthetically speaking, if I had a product titled Lunix Utilities, I wouldn't seem to fall under that trademark use. However, if my company or product name was MikeRoweSoft or Lindows, Microsoft could and would sue me.
*Shrug* It's a pretty hairy issue. I see where Linus or his lawyers are coming from, but I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.
But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? We trash MS a lot for tossing its weight around with trademarks and filing for silly patents, but here we have a direct competitor who blindly fires off an illegitimate lawsuit against free speech journalism. In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?
Not to sound like a fanboy, but this what is attractive about Linux. There's no organization, good or bad, that I'm directly supporting by using it as my computer OS. Trust me, I think Tiger might be the best user-centric OS by miles, but Apple as the market leader would frighten me just as much as MS as the market leader and as such, I don't buy their products.
Basically, CNET's article boils down to CS majors wanting to branch out to other disciplines and also how CS research is no longer just about computing but about other problem domains.
That's actually a good rationale, but you still have to consider that there are a number of homes still without computers, most of whom are low income households. Case in point, I was a collegiate athlete at a university with a computer requirement if you stayed on campus. Out of the 20-30 freshman that came in on our team each year, around 5 had to have a surplus computer donated to them since they didn't own one (and most were on financial aid). Also in rural areas (see GP's reference to Indiana), people, I'm guessing based on previous experience, are much less likely to own a computer. I came from a rural background as well and had several classmates who had to type their senior papers in the school library. Albeit, this was in 1999, but at the time computer prices were dropping drastically.
So to keep this on topic, I would suggest that if you put cheap computers in schools, they will be used. The kids with the same technology at home will forgo it or most likely use it to goof off. But others will use them out of necessity.
Disclaimer: This post is backed by nothing more than my unqualified opinion.
In my experience there is no correlation in what you said about football. Football just happens to attract alpha males who have inferiority complexes and decide to take out their aggression on others to hide that complex. If you look outside of the majority of high school football players and a few binge drinking college players you will find a quite benevolent group of people. Just look at the number of college and pro football players who work through and support charities. Football itself is not a cause of violent behavior. It just happens to be a preferred medium of extra curricular activity for some who are already inconsiderate and pugnacious fools who feel they have to prove themselves on a stage and flex their supposed superiority on others who appear lesser than themselves.
I agree with your argument for the most. However, I own Madden 2005 and have recently rented '06. In doing so, I have noticed small little improvements that go a long way with the more meticulous football fan, such as myself.
For example, the article's aforementioned QB vision light, which is based on the QB awareness rating and determines the field of vision for a QB. You can control this yourself with the right analog stick or focus in on different receivers. Make a pass to someone not in your field of vision and you will make a duck pass. This feature will need some tweaking, but it is one step closer to making the game realistic and prevents previously awseome madden players from exploiting passing the ball all game.
Another small improvement has been in line play. The animations that determine positioning of linemen during the play are improved. Defensive lineman in a 4-3 now finally line up as they are supposed to (in gaps instead of headup), and the ability to slide your offensive line protection, while not perfect, definitely lets you control logic for your lineman that never existed in previous games.
The last one I'll mention are smart routes. In older games. WR's were restricted to predetermined routes based on the play you call, or you could hot route them, but the distance they run in the route is always the same. Now you can make their curl routes and in/out routes go all the way to first down marker. Again, a small improvement, but one that makes the play in this game a bit better.
In all honesty, I think people expect too much of this football game series. There are only so many things you can add each year and each year everyone wants something revolutionary. All I want is steady improvement so that when I play this game in 2015 (assuming it is still being produced) it should be much closer to the real thing. Just look at at how far it has advanced in 1995 to see what I mean.
And if by the time the reach office they will be already be behind the current state of technology and will still not be making fully informed decisions regarding that technology.
Ahh sorry. Twas late last night, couldn't sleep and was getting restless. I tried typing my self to sleep through that post. :(
"In terms of "boring" positions in football, pretty much the only ones I can think of are the O-line and maybe full back. All defensive positions offer complex gameplay. "
.5-3 seconds time.
I'll assume you haven't played competetive football. Offensive line requires some of the most complex gameplay in the entire game of football, outdone only by QB's and arguably MLB's and Safeties (since these guys generally have to control the entire defense and be able to tell everyone else what to do). The front 7 in football (DL and LB's) really only comes down to starting out in a certain alignment based on the play/formation and then controlling a gap followed by reading and reacting to a play. The offensive line tends to be much more complex, since there are a great number of rules that affect both blocking assignments and blocking techniques. For example, and without going into great detail, a linebacker walking up on the outside of the line can change the initial blocking assignment along with the technique (footwork, aiming point, etc.) of all 5 offensive lineman - and that change must be communicated across the board in a
Even without knowning this, next time you watch a football game, take notice of the constant battles that occur between offensive tackles and defensive ends on passing downs. It's easily the most exciting thing that's viewable from television (since you can't see the route runners until after the fact and watching the qb is pretty dull unless he scrambles).
Yeah, I was using 192kb/s. Might explain why I wasn't dazzled by ogg when compared to mp3 :)
It's personal preference. I prefer what is normally referred to as the "Rock" setting that has high bass, high treble, and a low mid. There is a big difference in the sound between this setting and the default midlevel setting for everything... at least to my ears.
The linux community at large seems to have a strong sentiment in favor of using ogg over mp3. I personally tried ogg but in my media player of choice (xmms) the equalizer had absolutely no effect on ogg files whereas with mp3 files the equalizer worked, thus making the mp3 sound much, much better than the non-equalized (don't know the technical name for it) sound of the ogg file. Does anyone know why this is? Am I missing a good thing by not using ogg or is ogg just hyped up a bit much?
"Even something like football - if you're not the quarterback or a receiver, is it really going to be fun?"
Short answer, yes.
Having other positions non-ai controlled allows more actions to be taken by those positions and I would love nothing more than a football game that lets you take control of a player besides the ball handler. I'm a former football player and nothing pisses me off worse in football games than the lack of depth in the number of actions that an ai controlled position can make, generally lineman. Personally, I would love a football game that would let me take control of an offensive lineman, let me control the way I block (fighting to gain helmet position for leverage, handfighting, sealing, turning out, cutblocking, timing your punch on pass protection, etc. etc.). Of course I'm probably in an extremely small minority here. But nonetheless I personally think playing another position in a fully online football would be fun.
What Gentoo calls a "LiveCD" is mostly different from what every other distribution refers to as a "LiveCD". It's still a true "LiveCD" in that it is a bootable cd that contains a fully working instance of Gentoo on it. However this working instance of Gentoo is a minimal, command line driven (until this release) instance and its purpose is to give you an environment in which you can begin installing Gentoo from scratch to your hard drive.
Actually I think your post raises a good point. That point being that there is this myth that gentoo takes forver to install. Of course if you try to compile from stage1 on some 333mhz intel celeron, it is going to take the course of a couple days to finish. Conversely, if you start from stage 3 on a very recent machine, you can be up and running in a working environment in ~3 hours, or quite possibly less, assuming you don't use a heavyweight window manager (aka gnome/kde). And keep in mind you always have the option of using binaries instead of compiling from source.
For instance, the gentoo installation was my first experience manually editing fstab, compiling a kernel, editing various files in /etc by hand, so and so forth. Installing gentoo is not so much a learning experience than it is a "frame of mind" changer. It completely forced me out of using gui configs to the point where I now prefer to go edit files by hand. Of course, you could always go edit files by hand in other distributions as well, but gentoo (moreso the gentoo community and documention) is more supportive of it and explains it much better than other distributions that I've seen. (Disclaimer, I haven't used debian, so I can't speak of its community and documentation).