I think the same prejudices that affect all fields of business would affect IT. If discrimination were really a problem, why would so many tech jobs go to Indians? Money and skills are more important in IT than race.
The person who was told he'd get a job just because he's a caucasoid was being misled. I've been turned down for dozens of IT jobs. It wasn't until I gained some better experience and some certs that I finally found better jobs in IT. IT is a very competitive field. Even with the skills and experience it's hard to get a job.
I think the real question isn't race but age. When you see a 50 year old netadmin versus a 28 year old admin, who do you think has a better chance at getting an IT job? Save your pennies NOW, fellow/.ers. We'll all be 50 before we know it!
Don't automatically think we elders are so uninformed. I'm 75 and know many other elders online who are also very knowledgeable. I know my way around computers and also play MMORPGs with all ages and don't miss a beat. I don't tell my age, no need to. I amaze my computer savvy sons who work in the business.
Right on! I do know quite a few people that are at least 20+ years my senior and are very savvy.
I'd be curious about the age of these people who are "afraid" of computers.
I'm working with someone right now who's in her thirties. Any kind of description on how to do something gets her to weasel out saying "I don't know how to do that". I still know a lot of people who are either intimated (maybe a better word than 'scared') or just plain indifferent.
I showed up and chatted with a bunch of teachers in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. They all said the same thing. They wanted to make sure that kids weren't "afraid" of the computer. I commented that you don't need to tell them this--elementary school kids aren't afraid of anything.
Good point. I figured this book was aimed at adults who still didn't know much about computing.
But on the other hand, the number of things which can go wrong if they don't know what they're doing and they begin surfing the internet using MSIE and no firewall and no virus checker is pretty immense. Aren't they somewhat justified in this fear?
Two things:
1. That would be someone else breaking their computer, not them, technically. 2. Most people who are fearful of computers are completely unaware of the (very real) threats you pose.
My main point, though, is that there are people who literally recoil their hands away from a mouse thinking they're going to blow up the world. People with this kind of fear tend to not learn about computers because "they're just too scary" or they'll never understand "something that complex". The idea would be to get them to stop fearing computers and try using them.
Some people have a phobia of dogs. Some dogs can be rabid and attack for no reason, others can be very affectionate. Just as I'd try to convice a canine-phobe the right way to approach a dog I think people afraid of computers can be convinced not to be terrified of their keyboards.
That is an awesome idea!! You're right, it would help people get over their fear and it would be fun in the process. I may have to actually set something like that up.
I can't tell you how many people say they're "afraid" of computers. They don't want to try too many things since they're afraid of breaking something. There is the possibility they might delete system files, but that's become increasingly rare. I'd tell people not to be intimated by what they don't understand on their own computers, then show them how to find answers on their own.
Bottom line is most people only use computers for a narrow, limited purpose. The rest start investigating on their own.
Sounds more like science fiction to me
on
Forecasting Doomsday
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
James Lovelock, the planetary scientist famous for his Gaia Theory, writes in today's Independent of his belief that it is already too late to divert an environmental catastrophe which will see much of human civilisation destroyed. Fearing it too late to be green, he instead suggests communities plan for survival in a Mad Max type world with limited resources ruled by violent warlords. "
This posting really seems below/.'s level. This has less to do with the environmental theories as it does speculating the world that follows environmental destruction. This isn't science, it's imagination.
Incidentally, how would we prepare to survive in a "Mad Max" like world? We'd need guns and cars. Both use chemicals that supposedly destroy the environment. So it sounds like he's suggesting we should use a lot of the substances that allegedly would lead to our own destruction!
The same way we always have. Federal judges are available 24/7/365 to hand out wiretap warrants on short notice to agencies that have a case.
Except that the laws were way too restrictive. Wire taps were limited to phone numbers, not suspects. Al Qaeda agents in particular were notorious for switching cell phone numbers every two weeks or so. Guess what that meant to the FBI? Go get a new warrant. And that was AFTER finding the new number.
A more important question here would be "exactly how are we supposed to find your head when it's lodged so far up your ass?"
That's the question I pose to you as you're clearly ignorant of the provisions that limited the FBI from keeping more accurate info on terror suspects. Don't hurt your sphincter when you pull your head out, okay?
Al Qaeda doesn't exist....It's like taking all the dope dealers in america, giving them a name, and taking a random important drug dealer and claim he's their chief
Al Qaeda is the name of a group that composes several other terrorist groups. But it's certainly NOT a term invented by the US intelligence community.
Incidentally, whether "Al Qaeda" exists as a group or not, are you denying that there are terrorists out to attack the US and the West in general? Do you believe man actually walked on the moon or that it was all a conspiracy?
Although you fail to mention that the requirements (burden of proof) for the warrant are severely relaxed, thus making the warrant almost unnecessary and definitely meaning less.
Thanks for your comment. You're one of the few that actually acknowledges that the PA does in fact require a warrant.
As to how worthless that is, we can debate something so quantitive, but the fact is it does require a judge to sign off. That's a third party, friend, and it does in fact add the checks and balances.
Incidentally, does it bother you at all that these agencies are actually trying to get terrorists? I'm worried about abuses as well as the next guy. But I'm also concerned about making sure my airplane lands as well as takes off. Aren't you?
Replace "suspected terrorists" with "a federal judge."
You mean like what's already in the Patriot Act? As previously stated, you still need a warrant and a judge's permission for almost all terms in the PA.
I know it's not exactly fun reading, but it might be worth reading it a little before believing what you hear on CNN....
See my earlier comment. The Patriot Act DOES require a warrant and a judge to sign it. People seem to equate Patriot Act with bypassing warrants; that's not the case.
If the sunset provisions are demonstrably a boon to national security, the DoJ is free to write a bill with less hasty and better reviewed language and have Congress authorize the powers again.
True. What bugs me is how this is touted as a defeat "for the Bush administration". As if terrorists only target Republicans!
"dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders... If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on December 31"
How about it's a huge defeat for national security? I'm not surprised CNN wrote it this way, but exactly how are we supposed to find Al Qaeda cells in the U.S.? Ask suspected terrorists for permission first before we bug them?
The terrorists aren't going to bomb us because they're too crafty; they're going to bomb us because we're too stupid to stop them.
It's nice to see that (real) manga has made it into the culture so much that a.) it's considered a draw for young people and b.) American newspapers refer to it as manga. When I bought my first manga book 21 years ago people stared at me like I was holding plutonium ("Why the hell do you have THAT??") so it's nice to see young people consider it mainstream. I agree with most people posting that American drawn manga isn't real manga (although it's come a long way from the abysmally crappy 'Ninja High School').
Now if they were going to publish REAL manga I'd do backflips! How about some of the 4 panel manga that appears in magazines like Comic Morning or Action?
no it doesn't. It makes no sense what-so-ever, it just gives a central point of failure. It is horrible, and there are many better ways to acomplish the same thing.
Okay then, what's the alternative?
It also lows the system down, and makes it difficult to maintain a system.
I disagree with your latter point. Centralization usually makes it easier to maintain; you only have one place to go instead of dozens. In *nix you can have configuration files in dozens of places, and previous versions of Windows had multiple files. That isn't particularly easy.
The drawback, though, is like you said; you can have a central point of failure. Which is one of my points; it has its ups and downs. To dismiss it because of the drawbacks only is shortsighted.
Do casual users care about 'maintenance'? Most of my clients use their computers like most people use cars; just a means to an end. They don't care about most of these issues, which is why MS invented the registry. Which is another one of my original points; this was designed not for hackers, but for users. A lot of self proclaimed 'hackers' never see this point.
personally I would like to see it go away, and have applications be contained to their own directory. it would lessen maintainans issues, and make the system faster.
That's what DOS did. It didn't work all that well. I agree with you on speed but disagree with you on maintenance.
It's "Dvorak." When calling someone an idiot you should probably spell their name properly, lest you look like an idiot yourself.
Whoops! I saw that after I made the post. Point well taken. Although getting someone's name wrong is more of a typo rather than proof of idiocy, but you're right.
Dvorak is making an apt comparison here. It's a racket. They have a bad product that's full of security holes, and now they are either going to A.) charge for software to "protect" you from the flaws they didn't care enough to fix in the first place and B.) charge you for an upgrade to a new OS that in all liklihood will have very similar problems to the current incarnation, thus necessitating A.), as well. This is in fact a conflict of interest.
If Microsoft actually started charging for Windows Updates, he'd have a point. To my knowledge, they're not.
So if what you're saying is correct, any time a software company releases a product with errors they're obligated to give free upgrades? MS releases OS upgrades typically after a period of years later. Vista is due out next year, 4 years after XP hit the market. They're not supposed to charge for upgrades that do in fact have improvements? This doesn't make sense to me.
MS has made security errors in the past, for sure. But any OS is vulnerable. Even *GASP!* Linux can be compromised, and I run 3 different machines on Linux. Security problems are universal.
Dvorak is probably referring to how other operating systems (*nix and OSX, for example) do things: store configuration data in text files.
One, he didn't say that, you're inferring it. Two, that's how DOS used to do it. And it's not perfect in the *nix world. Using fonts in X Windows and in a command line program won't work since they're not centralized. The Windows registry has its faults (as I said earlier), but it makes sense for a computer system you want to run on autopilot.
Remember that Windows wasn't designed to appeal to hackers, it was designed to be user friendly so it would sell. Doesn't it make sense to put the configuration files in one central location (like the registry) so as to control the whole computer system?
My point wasn't that the registry was perfect; my point is that Dvorak (spelled correctly this time) offered a short sighted opinion while suggesting no alternative.
The Windows Registry is a pain in the ass to work with-- a pain to back up and restore, a pain to alter, a pain to transfer from system to system, a pain to find things in, a pain to even understand without explicit instructions--
Yeah, no argument here. But that's beyond the scope of its purpose. It's not designed to have casual users go through and mess with it. For those of us who like to hack into things like that it's annoying, but I'm suggesting look at the big picture.
and other simpler solutions have existed since basically the beginning of computing.
That's true. Of course, computers had black and white screens, 8 KB of RAM, floppy disks, etc.
The alternative is fairly obvious to anyone who has worked with more than just Windows, which is perhaps both why Dvorak did not suggest it and why you did not understand it.
Actually, I work with all types of systems. I've been working with computers since 1979, so I think you were a little zealous in your assessment there. I understand Dvorak perfectly, he just isn't thinking too far ahead. I have more insight to only think about how computer systems suit me. I'm not as myopic as yourself (look it up).
Sorry to sound so inflammatory, but the man's an idiot. He made stupid comments back on CNET when it was a TV show, and he did it again in this essay. Here's what I mean:
There is no incentive to fix the code base if it can make additional money selling "protection."
That's not true at all. Microsoft has all types of incentives, namely competition from alternatives like Linux and Mac OS. But even from a programming standpoint, it makes sense. Virtually all software companies update their software; it makes sense that MS will too. It's foolish and cynical to think they "just don't care", even though I know a lot of people do.
Not to change the subject, but isn't it about time we junked the entire concept of a "registry?" This concept has been the bane of Windows since its invention. It prevents easy program migration. It creates conflicts. It invites tampering. It's exploited by viruses and spyware. Why does Microsoft insist on continuing its use? There has to be a better way.
Two points about this:
1. There is a lot of functionality added by the registry. Yes, it has a curse along with the blessing, but does Dorvack actually think Windows ran better without a registry like it did in 3.1? I think he's just a little behind the times.
2. How about he actually suggest an alternative? Bashing MS is one thing. How about Dorvack suggest a better way? It's easy to say "Microsoft sucks". How about he come up with a plan on his own?
This from the man who said "No CD software should cost $50 when it only costs.50 to make a CD"
In about 5 billion years the sun is going to expand and take out everything from where it is now to about Mars' orbit. The entire first 4 planets will be consumed. Women and children will be hardest hit. Bet we'll all feel guilty about the fossil fuels by then.
" 'The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart."
Gee, that would be a shame. I'd have so much trouble getting to all those Tunisian websites! How will I know which pop singer graces the charts in Tunisia? Where will I get the Cricket scores? Camel race statistics?
Notice that the big players in the EU (France, Germany, etc) haven't mentioned factioning themselves from the Internet? Might funny, I'd say...
Slashdot Mirror
The person who was told he'd get a job just because he's a caucasoid was being misled. I've been turned down for dozens of IT jobs. It wasn't until I gained some better experience and some certs that I finally found better jobs in IT. IT is a very competitive field. Even with the skills and experience it's hard to get a job.
I think the real question isn't race but age. When you see a 50 year old netadmin versus a 28 year old admin, who do you think has a better chance at getting an IT job? Save your pennies NOW, fellow /.ers. We'll all be 50 before we know it!
Right on! I do know quite a few people that are at least 20+ years my senior and are very savvy.
I'm working with someone right now who's in her thirties. Any kind of description on how to do something gets her to weasel out saying "I don't know how to do that". I still know a lot of people who are either intimated (maybe a better word than 'scared') or just plain indifferent.
I showed up and chatted with a bunch of teachers in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. They all said the same thing. They wanted to make sure that kids weren't "afraid" of the computer. I commented that you don't need to tell them this--elementary school kids aren't afraid of anything.
Good point. I figured this book was aimed at adults who still didn't know much about computing.
Two things:
1. That would be someone else breaking their computer, not them, technically.
2. Most people who are fearful of computers are completely unaware of the (very real) threats you pose.
My main point, though, is that there are people who literally recoil their hands away from a mouse thinking they're going to blow up the world. People with this kind of fear tend to not learn about computers because "they're just too scary" or they'll never understand "something that complex". The idea would be to get them to stop fearing computers and try using them.
Some people have a phobia of dogs. Some dogs can be rabid and attack for no reason, others can be very affectionate. Just as I'd try to convice a canine-phobe the right way to approach a dog I think people afraid of computers can be convinced not to be terrified of their keyboards.
That is an awesome idea!! You're right, it would help people get over their fear and it would be fun in the process. I may have to actually set something like that up.
Bottom line is most people only use computers for a narrow, limited purpose. The rest start investigating on their own.
This posting really seems below /.'s level. This has less to do with the environmental theories as it does speculating the world that follows environmental destruction. This isn't science, it's imagination.
Incidentally, how would we prepare to survive in a "Mad Max" like world? We'd need guns and cars. Both use chemicals that supposedly destroy the environment. So it sounds like he's suggesting we should use a lot of the substances that allegedly would lead to our own destruction!
Except that the laws were way too restrictive. Wire taps were limited to phone numbers, not suspects. Al Qaeda agents in particular were notorious for switching cell phone numbers every two weeks or so. Guess what that meant to the FBI? Go get a new warrant. And that was AFTER finding the new number.
A more important question here would be "exactly how are we supposed to find your head when it's lodged so far up your ass?"
That's the question I pose to you as you're clearly ignorant of the provisions that limited the FBI from keeping more accurate info on terror suspects. Don't hurt your sphincter when you pull your head out, okay?
Al Qaeda is the name of a group that composes several other terrorist groups. But it's certainly NOT a term invented by the US intelligence community.
Incidentally, whether "Al Qaeda" exists as a group or not, are you denying that there are terrorists out to attack the US and the West in general? Do you believe man actually walked on the moon or that it was all a conspiracy?
Thanks for your comment. You're one of the few that actually acknowledges that the PA does in fact require a warrant.
As to how worthless that is, we can debate something so quantitive, but the fact is it does require a judge to sign off. That's a third party, friend, and it does in fact add the checks and balances.
Incidentally, does it bother you at all that these agencies are actually trying to get terrorists? I'm worried about abuses as well as the next guy. But I'm also concerned about making sure my airplane lands as well as takes off. Aren't you?
Right. And Israel was behind 9/11. Or was that all an illusion of Fox News? Damn, this Cool-aid is good.
Maybe this Dean quote will help; EEEEEYYYYIIIIIAAAAAHHHHHHHH! :)
It just doesn't sound as nice coming through text....
You mean like what's already in the Patriot Act? As previously stated, you still need a warrant and a judge's permission for almost all terms in the PA.
I know it's not exactly fun reading, but it might be worth reading it a little before believing what you hear on CNN....
See my earlier comment. The Patriot Act DOES require a warrant and a judge to sign it. People seem to equate Patriot Act with bypassing warrants; that's not the case.
That's what's required in the Patriot Act. You still have to get a judge to sign it! It's in there.
True. What bugs me is how this is touted as a defeat "for the Bush administration". As if terrorists only target Republicans!
How about it's a huge defeat for national security? I'm not surprised CNN wrote it this way, but exactly how are we supposed to find Al Qaeda cells in the U.S.? Ask suspected terrorists for permission first before we bug them?
The terrorists aren't going to bomb us because they're too crafty; they're going to bomb us because we're too stupid to stop them.
Now if they were going to publish REAL manga I'd do backflips! How about some of the 4 panel manga that appears in magazines like Comic Morning or Action?
no it doesn't. It makes no sense what-so-ever, it just gives a central point of failure. It is horrible, and there are many better ways to acomplish the same thing.
Okay then, what's the alternative?
It also lows the system down, and makes it difficult to maintain a system.
I disagree with your latter point. Centralization usually makes it easier to maintain; you only have one place to go instead of dozens. In *nix you can have configuration files in dozens of places, and previous versions of Windows had multiple files. That isn't particularly easy.
The drawback, though, is like you said; you can have a central point of failure. Which is one of my points; it has its ups and downs. To dismiss it because of the drawbacks only is shortsighted.
Do casual users care about 'maintenance'? Most of my clients use their computers like most people use cars; just a means to an end. They don't care about most of these issues, which is why MS invented the registry. Which is another one of my original points; this was designed not for hackers, but for users. A lot of self proclaimed 'hackers' never see this point.
personally I would like to see it go away, and have applications be contained to their own directory. it would lessen maintainans issues, and make the system faster.
That's what DOS did. It didn't work all that well. I agree with you on speed but disagree with you on maintenance.
Thanks for your thoughts on the issue.
It's "Dvorak." When calling someone an idiot you should probably spell their name properly, lest you look like an idiot yourself.
Whoops! I saw that after I made the post. Point well taken. Although getting someone's name wrong is more of a typo rather than proof of idiocy, but you're right.
Dvorak is making an apt comparison here. It's a racket. They have a bad product that's full of security holes, and now they are either going to A.) charge for software to "protect" you from the flaws they didn't care enough to fix in the first place and B.) charge you for an upgrade to a new OS that in all liklihood will have very similar problems to the current incarnation, thus necessitating A.), as well. This is in fact a conflict of interest.
If Microsoft actually started charging for Windows Updates, he'd have a point. To my knowledge, they're not.
So if what you're saying is correct, any time a software company releases a product with errors they're obligated to give free upgrades? MS releases OS upgrades typically after a period of years later. Vista is due out next year, 4 years after XP hit the market. They're not supposed to charge for upgrades that do in fact have improvements? This doesn't make sense to me.
MS has made security errors in the past, for sure. But any OS is vulnerable. Even *GASP!* Linux can be compromised, and I run 3 different machines on Linux. Security problems are universal.
Dvorak is probably referring to how other operating systems (*nix and OSX, for example) do things: store configuration data in text files.
One, he didn't say that, you're inferring it. Two, that's how DOS used to do it. And it's not perfect in the *nix world. Using fonts in X Windows and in a command line program won't work since they're not centralized. The Windows registry has its faults (as I said earlier), but it makes sense for a computer system you want to run on autopilot.
Remember that Windows wasn't designed to appeal to hackers, it was designed to be user friendly so it would sell. Doesn't it make sense to put the configuration files in one central location (like the registry) so as to control the whole computer system?
My point wasn't that the registry was perfect; my point is that Dvorak (spelled correctly this time) offered a short sighted opinion while suggesting no alternative.
The Windows Registry is a pain in the ass to work with-- a pain to back up and restore, a pain to alter, a pain to transfer from system to system, a pain to find things in, a pain to even understand without explicit instructions--
Yeah, no argument here. But that's beyond the scope of its purpose. It's not designed to have casual users go through and mess with it. For those of us who like to hack into things like that it's annoying, but I'm suggesting look at the big picture.
and other simpler solutions have existed since basically the beginning of computing.
That's true. Of course, computers had black and white screens, 8 KB of RAM, floppy disks, etc.
The alternative is fairly obvious to anyone who has worked with more than just Windows, which is perhaps both why Dvorak did not suggest it and why you did not understand it.
Actually, I work with all types of systems. I've been working with computers since 1979, so I think you were a little zealous in your assessment there. I understand Dvorak perfectly, he just isn't thinking too far ahead. I have more insight to only think about how computer systems suit me. I'm not as myopic as yourself (look it up).
There is no incentive to fix the code base if it can make additional money selling "protection."
That's not true at all. Microsoft has all types of incentives, namely competition from alternatives like Linux and Mac OS. But even from a programming standpoint, it makes sense. Virtually all software companies update their software; it makes sense that MS will too. It's foolish and cynical to think they "just don't care", even though I know a lot of people do.
Not to change the subject, but isn't it about time we junked the entire concept of a "registry?" This concept has been the bane of Windows since its invention. It prevents easy program migration. It creates conflicts. It invites tampering. It's exploited by viruses and spyware. Why does Microsoft insist on continuing its use? There has to be a better way.
Two points about this:
1. There is a lot of functionality added by the registry. Yes, it has a curse along with the blessing, but does Dorvack actually think Windows ran better without a registry like it did in 3.1? I think he's just a little behind the times.
2. How about he actually suggest an alternative? Bashing MS is one thing. How about Dorvack suggest a better way? It's easy to say "Microsoft sucks". How about he come up with a plan on his own?
This from the man who said "No CD software should cost $50 when it only costs .50 to make a CD"
Real profound.
In about 5 billion years the sun is going to expand and take out everything from where it is now to about Mars' orbit. The entire first 4 planets will be consumed. Women and children will be hardest hit. Bet we'll all feel guilty about the fossil fuels by then.
Gee, that would be a shame. I'd have so much trouble getting to all those Tunisian websites! How will I know which pop singer graces the charts in Tunisia? Where will I get the Cricket scores? Camel race statistics?
Notice that the big players in the EU (France, Germany, etc) haven't mentioned factioning themselves from the Internet? Might funny, I'd say...
Clueless? Yes. I messed up. Of course, if the documentation said to actually do this then I wouldn't have been misled.
I guess that's too much to ask.
Nice try anyway, tho'