Wrong, you are nitpicking and ignoring my point. I'll get to your second point about the military, don't worry. If I have a laundry list of projects, and you have a laundry list of projects, our ability to collaborate makes both our lives easier. I'm not even talking about places where our projects have dependencies on each other. This is the way of the world. If I need someone's assistance, I ask. Often times that requires a bit of training which I happily provide. Not because you are an idiot, but because you don't know where I am in my project or what my clear goal is for your segment.
If someone laughs at someone else' failure, that is a bad person you don't want on your team. Different of course than friendly jostling which peers use to motivate each other. Humiliation is damaging to the team. So like I said, you have some poor experiences. While pitiful, it's not indicative of what a good team is about.
My team experience didn't start in the military, but I served 5 years active and worked on many teams after (I may have a few years on you). I was on a quick reaction force where we had to work as a team or we died. There is no such thing as a solo person in the military. Competence is not the same as team work, and if you really had military experience you should know this. We trained for both, and acted on both. A person that could not shoot was incompetent. A person that failed to provide cover was not a team member and was quickly transferred (at a minimum). Even snipers work in teams, so don't try to claim you were some Rambo sniper and never worked with anyone else. Where you may have been military and not used team work.. supply or some other shit job where your commanders didn't give a shit about you (rare, but I have seen them). My team would fail them on their ARTEP and then train them on teamwork and competence.
Think about that from the managers perspective. First, it's hard to know everyone slacking. Second, you are immediately accused of practicing favoritism (and are practicing favoritism). I get the point, but it can't be a first step. When trust is broken, everyone has to be treated the same. In the military, when someone screws up the platoon, company, battalion, or hell I have even seen brigades all do push ups together. Non commanding officers are expected to have their faces in the dirt with the troops. It's an invaluable lesson that many in the public sector don't get.
In my experience the only "together" available person-to-person is social. So meetings become opportunities to socialize and play status games (I called a bigger meeting than you so I have more status than you) rather than tools to accomplish business objectives.
It's not about social ranking in a good environment. It's about camaraderie, mentoring, and learning to work together. You can be the best quarter back in the world, but if you can't work with the center you will fail. If you can't get along with your team members, they will laugh as you get pummeled by defense. The team will lose much more than win.
Sounds like you are an egocentric person that believes that you are all that's needed for your company to survive. That works in very small shops, but does not work at larger comanies. If you are not the egocentric person, then you have never been a member of a good team and I do have sympathy.
I agree that the root problem is management, but refuse to discount that remote work is also a problem at some companies. I work, and have worked at places where remote work usually meant slacking for the day. At other places, some people that work remote were useless and unproductive members of the team.
If everyone is at the office, peer pressure can help stir the shit off of the bottom. When people work where management is not good, the shit at the bottom does bring everyone else down, and even the best workers begin to smell bad and lose their motivation. When management fails to maintain motivation, peer pressure at least keeps the people with some motivation from giving up and becoming slackers. Remote access drastically reduces the impact of peer pressure on coworkers.
It is more offensive than that. The term is actually derived from "Screwed by Google" and "Screw Google", not Google being a scrooge. But you may prefer to believe what Microsoft's marketing department tells you.
The internet has made it easy to offer feedback and that should (in theory) help people govern better. While it is true that we could always "write/call" our congressman, it isn't really practical when you get to higher levels of government (e.g. do my tax dollars go to fund a war or education).
Basically the way Internet posts, forms, etc.. are treated is identical to how they treated letters. Some schlep reads them and replies with a rubber stamped signature with generic responses that always result in the same statement. "tough shit"
I used to have some faith that they read letters and took action, but knowledge has made me rather cynical. Money votes currently, not people. That has been a progressive trend that we have allowed to happen and need to organize to revert by replacing people in office with people of higher moral character than we currently have.
From Aristotle, we have It is imperative for society that the most intelligent people are also the most honest.. While there are many people of high intelligence that are honest, they are very infrequently politicians.
Don't bother, Unity sucks ass no matter how much they try and tout it. I tried to install and run KDE on Ubuntu, that was a nightmare I don't want to repeat.
A boycott is not just you not purchasing something. A boycott is also you going out and damaging the business by getting others to share in the act of not purchasing. This is word of mouth, picket, post, and hell even take out Newspaper ads to support your boycott.
boycott [bkt]
vb
(tr) to refuse to have dealings with (a person, organization, etc.) or refuse to buy (a product) as a protest or means of coercion to boycott foreign produce
If the person suing you has to pay for your defense, you at least have bargaining collateral as a small company. Currently there is nothing that you can do if you are a victim of a patent troll case to recoup your losses. A slice of cake is better than no cake in this case.
To be very frank, this is not a real fix. The system has been absolutely broken by deregulation and lobbyist written laws that were rubber stamped. It needs a do-over to fix it (or completely undo the damage that was done by putting back regulation and dismantling laws aimed at protecting monopolies). Since the reality is that the real fix won't happen, we have to move step by step to assemble the system back to the way it was intended to work. Apathy will not make things better, in case that's where your mind goes. Apathy makes things worse when dealing with corruption.
In almost every civil action there is something called a counter suit. What is my option when you shut down my business because of an alleged patent infringement? What do I counter sue for? Nothing, because there is no protection from arbitrary and ambiguous patents or lawsuits using such patents. Even in cases where a patent has been invalidated during the trial process, the defendant has tremendous losses. Those losses can not be recouped. If I pay a troll and the patent gets invalidated, I could sue for my payment to be returned but not for the legal fees that got me to pay them in the first place.
That is absolutely not working as intended, and is not how the rest of the galaxy works. If you have doubts, go ahead and sue me for wrongful death of someone and I'll counter sue you for defamation, slander, and libel. Guess who will walk out of court owing money. Go ahead, I triple dog dare you.
Wow, did you read anything at all or did you see "patent" and just start posting? If you read anything and are posting, you must be a shill. If you didn't read, shame on you. "loser" in this case is limited to a defendant where it's deemed that the company initiating the suit is a troll. The wording in the article states very clearly that if you are deemed a NPE (more on that in a moment) then you must pay a bond to cover the defendant's cost in order to pursue the case.
NPE: You are a widget maker, and competing with 10 other widget makers in the market place. Trollguy buys a patent for a screw that you use in your widget and he sues every one of you dirty widget makers for infringing on his patent for a widget-screw. He does not make widgets, did not invent a widget, and in fact his current business is buying patents and suing people. He would be by definition a NPE. As a NPE, he needs to bond the defendant's legal fees, for every one of those cases of alleged infringement, in order to pursue the cases.
That is a good thing!
In addition: If the infringement claim is dies in court you, Mister Widget, immediately recoup your legal fees by cashing in the bond.
Now if Joe's Widgets sues you for stealing their rounded corner widget design, they are not a NPE. They do not have to bond your legal fees. So the law does not harm normal competition and does not punish inventors. It's at least "some" protection from the current joke that has become patent trolling.
Since I have not fully read the Bill I can not claim that the wording is secure and clear enough to really do anything. Politicians are generally shitheads, and even the best written and intended Bills can get screwed up by their idiocy. That fact is rarely the Bill's fault, but rather the people's fault for voting in shitheads over and over and over again.
Small shops are not out there filing lawsuits against numerous alleged patent infringing companies. Generally they are the targets of that approach. The bill would allow the targets of patent trolls the ability to recoup losses that they currently have no ability to recoup. Currently the defendants either pay the troll, or pay for lawyers to fight. There is no recovery currently for any part of the trial. The current methods of patent trolls are extortionist.
You phrase the problem like the patent trolls are the victims. That is absolutely not the case.
The seediest of these shops does not work based on commission, but by the task. Fix your resume for 200 bucks, get you an interview at X site for 100 bucks, practice interviews for another fee. Of course if you fail the first interview and don't get the job, it's because you didn't get all the practice in.
Some of these people have a lot of interview experience. Until the person can't perform a task, which is sometimes months after hiring they can bullshit well enough to maintain a pay check. And yes, at many sites it is not cool to fire someone for being inept right away, especially when English is a 2nd language. The blame will usually go to language barrier, not knowledge. This gives time for people to learn on the job. The trajectory is correct, but the path to get there is crooked.
I worked in the DOD on VR projects which is why I know of the studies showing potential harm from viewing. One may argue that at the time, we used 48hz per eye and now we can get better so it may not have the same impact. The studies did show a chance of it happening increasing based on amount of use.
What is easily provable is that immersion can cause severe headaches,nausea, disorientation, and in rare cases panic attacks. This is why 3D movies use very little depth in their visuals, and more single eye items. Snow flakes for one example may be right eye only while the rest of the scene is left and right with no depth change. Military people especially tend to work even under the distress caused by immersion. How many things can you think of that cause severe pain and don't cause problems?
It's not like Google magically broke you jackass. Here is one page, and here is another. When reading that second one, remember what is discussed in the first. Also follow the links in the first article. The Government studies are harder to find, but do exist.
This is not necessarily recruiters as you probably think. There are seedier shops that tailor to helping immigrants and H1B holders get jobs. You won't find them the same way you find a normal contract house (Armada, Mindsource, Taos, etc...[Those are larger contracting houses in Bay area of CA which may not apply to your State or Region, but Google them and you will know the type.]).
As mentioned, they train these candidates in acronym spewage to sound smart. They 'fix' their candidate's resume with every acronym possible to pass all of the filters that people (like the "manager" I responded to) rely on for finding good resumes. That should give you a chuckle when you think about it for a minute. It should also make you very sad when you realize that this manager thinks he's pretty damn smart for doing it too.
When I first started working, it was a 1 page limit. More than 1 page and you were ignored. About 15 years ago, it went to 2 pages. Today, it's 3-4 easy especially if you have a lot of experience. I don't mention day to day activities either, that is relevant project work, brief job history, education.
This is where companies make a few bucks by helping people get jobs. Legal, but shady. The fill out the forms that people like the guy posting demands people fill out with lengthy prefabricated answers. They make resumes for them and load them with junk.
I have been in IT for 25+ years and worked with a lot of stuff. I have had recruiters refuse to process my resume unless I added something I touched 16 years ago that the client may be looking for. For example 15 years ago, I ran several squid proxy servers for large companies. Today, I could muddle my way though a config if I had too. But it's on my resume because they way things work if it hits a search filter it gets through.
What that says to me is that they don't give a shit about your ability to learn, adapt, or how you think. It also most definitely ignores character.
The best managers I worked with, and for, read resumes and have trusted people do some call screening. The worst do like this person, and rely on regular expression acronym searches. The former were always great places to work, were well maintained and well built sites. The latter always sucked ass, were full of junk and 1 off systems that nobody could support.
Are you buying a dishwasher or hiring a person to become part of the team? If everyone is a dishwasher, go ahead and read the spec pages. If you are hiring a person, you probably should evaluate the person more than the resume. The resume gives you enough information to see what their education is, where and what they did for work. Today, having to have 3-4 page resumes listing every thing you ever touched is utter horse shit. But HR people think it's a great idea for some reason, so that's what people have to do. Resume's are nearly useless now days, except to catch the people that really don't care by spell checking or looking for obvious mistakes
The issue of jacking all trades is not unique to programming either. Sysadmins now need to claim to be experts in IOS, Netapp, SAN, every app under the sun (Java debugging, Apache/Tomcat debugging, Squid, HA Proxy), know at least 2 databases, code in script at least 3 languages (perl, python, java or C), and all 423 flavors of Linux because every previous jackass they hired thought their flavor was better.
Funny thing is as your technical manager to be the accountant in addition to being a manager and they would cry.
And of course the obvious problem is that the search filters pick up everyone that stuffs ass loads of acronyms in their resume, not "good" resumes. It makes everyone liars to some degree as well, since it's not possible to be an expert in everything they ask.
You are a manager right? You have any people that you manage? Give a couple of your senior guys a half hour a day to sift through resumes with you for a few days? Managing is also about finding creative solutions to problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, you are nitpicking and ignoring my point. I'll get to your second point about the military, don't worry. If I have a laundry list of projects, and you have a laundry list of projects, our ability to collaborate makes both our lives easier. I'm not even talking about places where our projects have dependencies on each other. This is the way of the world. If I need someone's assistance, I ask. Often times that requires a bit of training which I happily provide. Not because you are an idiot, but because you don't know where I am in my project or what my clear goal is for your segment.
If someone laughs at someone else' failure, that is a bad person you don't want on your team. Different of course than friendly jostling which peers use to motivate each other. Humiliation is damaging to the team. So like I said, you have some poor experiences. While pitiful, it's not indicative of what a good team is about.
My team experience didn't start in the military, but I served 5 years active and worked on many teams after (I may have a few years on you). I was on a quick reaction force where we had to work as a team or we died. There is no such thing as a solo person in the military. Competence is not the same as team work, and if you really had military experience you should know this. We trained for both, and acted on both. A person that could not shoot was incompetent. A person that failed to provide cover was not a team member and was quickly transferred (at a minimum). Even snipers work in teams, so don't try to claim you were some Rambo sniper and never worked with anyone else. Where you may have been military and not used team work.. supply or some other shit job where your commanders didn't give a shit about you (rare, but I have seen them). My team would fail them on their ARTEP and then train them on teamwork and competence.
Think about that from the managers perspective. First, it's hard to know everyone slacking. Second, you are immediately accused of practicing favoritism (and are practicing favoritism). I get the point, but it can't be a first step. When trust is broken, everyone has to be treated the same. In the military, when someone screws up the platoon, company, battalion, or hell I have even seen brigades all do push ups together. Non commanding officers are expected to have their faces in the dirt with the troops. It's an invaluable lesson that many in the public sector don't get.
In my experience the only "together" available person-to-person is social. So meetings become opportunities to socialize and play status games (I called a bigger meeting than you so I have more status than you) rather than tools to accomplish business objectives.
It's not about social ranking in a good environment. It's about camaraderie, mentoring, and learning to work together. You can be the best quarter back in the world, but if you can't work with the center you will fail. If you can't get along with your team members, they will laugh as you get pummeled by defense. The team will lose much more than win.
Sounds like you are an egocentric person that believes that you are all that's needed for your company to survive. That works in very small shops, but does not work at larger comanies. If you are not the egocentric person, then you have never been a member of a good team and I do have sympathy.
I agree that the root problem is management, but refuse to discount that remote work is also a problem at some companies. I work, and have worked at places where remote work usually meant slacking for the day. At other places, some people that work remote were useless and unproductive members of the team.
If everyone is at the office, peer pressure can help stir the shit off of the bottom. When people work where management is not good, the shit at the bottom does bring everyone else down, and even the best workers begin to smell bad and lose their motivation. When management fails to maintain motivation, peer pressure at least keeps the people with some motivation from giving up and becoming slackers. Remote access drastically reduces the impact of peer pressure on coworkers.
Maybe we could Binge and Purge information?
(Sounds like "Scrooge Google", doesn't it?).
It is more offensive than that. The term is actually derived from "Screwed by Google" and "Screw Google", not Google being a scrooge. But you may prefer to believe what Microsoft's marketing department tells you.
The internet has made it easy to offer feedback and that should (in theory) help people govern better. While it is true that we could always "write/call" our congressman, it isn't really practical when you get to higher levels of government (e.g. do my tax dollars go to fund a war or education).
Basically the way Internet posts, forms, etc.. are treated is identical to how they treated letters. Some schlep reads them and replies with a rubber stamped signature with generic responses that always result in the same statement. "tough shit"
I used to have some faith that they read letters and took action, but knowledge has made me rather cynical. Money votes currently, not people. That has been a progressive trend that we have allowed to happen and need to organize to revert by replacing people in office with people of higher moral character than we currently have.
From Aristotle, we have It is imperative for society that the most intelligent people are also the most honest.. While there are many people of high intelligence that are honest, they are very infrequently politicians.
Don't bother, Unity sucks ass no matter how much they try and tout it. I tried to install and run KDE on Ubuntu, that was a nightmare I don't want to repeat.
A boycott is not just you not purchasing something. A boycott is also you going out and damaging the business by getting others to share in the act of not purchasing. This is word of mouth, picket, post, and hell even take out Newspaper ads to support your boycott.
boycott [bkt] vb (tr) to refuse to have dealings with (a person, organization, etc.) or refuse to buy (a product) as a protest or means of coercion to boycott foreign produce
If the person suing you has to pay for your defense, you at least have bargaining collateral as a small company. Currently there is nothing that you can do if you are a victim of a patent troll case to recoup your losses. A slice of cake is better than no cake in this case.
To be very frank, this is not a real fix. The system has been absolutely broken by deregulation and lobbyist written laws that were rubber stamped. It needs a do-over to fix it (or completely undo the damage that was done by putting back regulation and dismantling laws aimed at protecting monopolies). Since the reality is that the real fix won't happen, we have to move step by step to assemble the system back to the way it was intended to work. Apathy will not make things better, in case that's where your mind goes. Apathy makes things worse when dealing with corruption.
Those orange skinned things with bleached hair in NJ are humans?
It requires a special kind of idiocy to claim that because you can't get a stitch now, you won't apply a band aid to slow down the bleeding.
I call bullshit!
In almost every civil action there is something called a counter suit. What is my option when you shut down my business because of an alleged patent infringement? What do I counter sue for? Nothing, because there is no protection from arbitrary and ambiguous patents or lawsuits using such patents. Even in cases where a patent has been invalidated during the trial process, the defendant has tremendous losses. Those losses can not be recouped. If I pay a troll and the patent gets invalidated, I could sue for my payment to be returned but not for the legal fees that got me to pay them in the first place.
That is absolutely not working as intended, and is not how the rest of the galaxy works. If you have doubts, go ahead and sue me for wrongful death of someone and I'll counter sue you for defamation, slander, and libel. Guess who will walk out of court owing money. Go ahead, I triple dog dare you.
Wow, did you read anything at all or did you see "patent" and just start posting? If you read anything and are posting, you must be a shill. If you didn't read, shame on you. "loser" in this case is limited to a defendant where it's deemed that the company initiating the suit is a troll. The wording in the article states very clearly that if you are deemed a NPE (more on that in a moment) then you must pay a bond to cover the defendant's cost in order to pursue the case.
NPE: You are a widget maker, and competing with 10 other widget makers in the market place. Trollguy buys a patent for a screw that you use in your widget and he sues every one of you dirty widget makers for infringing on his patent for a widget-screw. He does not make widgets, did not invent a widget, and in fact his current business is buying patents and suing people. He would be by definition a NPE. As a NPE, he needs to bond the defendant's legal fees, for every one of those cases of alleged infringement, in order to pursue the cases.
That is a good thing!
In addition: If the infringement claim is dies in court you, Mister Widget, immediately recoup your legal fees by cashing in the bond.
Now if Joe's Widgets sues you for stealing their rounded corner widget design, they are not a NPE. They do not have to bond your legal fees. So the law does not harm normal competition and does not punish inventors. It's at least "some" protection from the current joke that has become patent trolling.
Since I have not fully read the Bill I can not claim that the wording is secure and clear enough to really do anything. Politicians are generally shitheads, and even the best written and intended Bills can get screwed up by their idiocy. That fact is rarely the Bill's fault, but rather the people's fault for voting in shitheads over and over and over again.
Small shops are not out there filing lawsuits against numerous alleged patent infringing companies. Generally they are the targets of that approach. The bill would allow the targets of patent trolls the ability to recoup losses that they currently have no ability to recoup. Currently the defendants either pay the troll, or pay for lawyers to fight. There is no recovery currently for any part of the trial. The current methods of patent trolls are extortionist.
You phrase the problem like the patent trolls are the victims. That is absolutely not the case.
I thought the same thing, and reported Kaspersky to Kaspersky as a possible risk!
On the more serious side, it was pretty interesting to see an old school assembly built virus. Takes me back to the good ole days.
The seediest of these shops does not work based on commission, but by the task. Fix your resume for 200 bucks, get you an interview at X site for 100 bucks, practice interviews for another fee. Of course if you fail the first interview and don't get the job, it's because you didn't get all the practice in.
Some of these people have a lot of interview experience. Until the person can't perform a task, which is sometimes months after hiring they can bullshit well enough to maintain a pay check. And yes, at many sites it is not cool to fire someone for being inept right away, especially when English is a 2nd language. The blame will usually go to language barrier, not knowledge. This gives time for people to learn on the job. The trajectory is correct, but the path to get there is crooked.
I worked in the DOD on VR projects which is why I know of the studies showing potential harm from viewing. One may argue that at the time, we used 48hz per eye and now we can get better so it may not have the same impact. The studies did show a chance of it happening increasing based on amount of use.
What is easily provable is that immersion can cause severe headaches,nausea, disorientation, and in rare cases panic attacks. This is why 3D movies use very little depth in their visuals, and more single eye items. Snow flakes for one example may be right eye only while the rest of the scene is left and right with no depth change. Military people especially tend to work even under the distress caused by immersion. How many things can you think of that cause severe pain and don't cause problems?
It's not like Google magically broke you jackass. Here is one page, and here is another. When reading that second one, remember what is discussed in the first. Also follow the links in the first article. The Government studies are harder to find, but do exist.
This is not necessarily recruiters as you probably think. There are seedier shops that tailor to helping immigrants and H1B holders get jobs. You won't find them the same way you find a normal contract house (Armada, Mindsource, Taos, etc...[Those are larger contracting houses in Bay area of CA which may not apply to your State or Region, but Google them and you will know the type.]).
As mentioned, they train these candidates in acronym spewage to sound smart. They 'fix' their candidate's resume with every acronym possible to pass all of the filters that people (like the "manager" I responded to) rely on for finding good resumes. That should give you a chuckle when you think about it for a minute. It should also make you very sad when you realize that this manager thinks he's pretty damn smart for doing it too.
When I first started working, it was a 1 page limit. More than 1 page and you were ignored. About 15 years ago, it went to 2 pages. Today, it's 3-4 easy especially if you have a lot of experience. I don't mention day to day activities either, that is relevant project work, brief job history, education.
This is where companies make a few bucks by helping people get jobs. Legal, but shady. The fill out the forms that people like the guy posting demands people fill out with lengthy prefabricated answers. They make resumes for them and load them with junk.
I have been in IT for 25+ years and worked with a lot of stuff. I have had recruiters refuse to process my resume unless I added something I touched 16 years ago that the client may be looking for. For example 15 years ago, I ran several squid proxy servers for large companies. Today, I could muddle my way though a config if I had too. But it's on my resume because they way things work if it hits a search filter it gets through.
What that says to me is that they don't give a shit about your ability to learn, adapt, or how you think. It also most definitely ignores character.
The best managers I worked with, and for, read resumes and have trusted people do some call screening. The worst do like this person, and rely on regular expression acronym searches. The former were always great places to work, were well maintained and well built sites. The latter always sucked ass, were full of junk and 1 off systems that nobody could support.
Are you buying a dishwasher or hiring a person to become part of the team? If everyone is a dishwasher, go ahead and read the spec pages. If you are hiring a person, you probably should evaluate the person more than the resume. The resume gives you enough information to see what their education is, where and what they did for work. Today, having to have 3-4 page resumes listing every thing you ever touched is utter horse shit. But HR people think it's a great idea for some reason, so that's what people have to do. Resume's are nearly useless now days, except to catch the people that really don't care by spell checking or looking for obvious mistakes
The issue of jacking all trades is not unique to programming either. Sysadmins now need to claim to be experts in IOS, Netapp, SAN, every app under the sun (Java debugging, Apache/Tomcat debugging, Squid, HA Proxy), know at least 2 databases, code in script at least 3 languages (perl, python, java or C), and all 423 flavors of Linux because every previous jackass they hired thought their flavor was better.
Funny thing is as your technical manager to be the accountant in addition to being a manager and they would cry.
And of course the obvious problem is that the search filters pick up everyone that stuffs ass loads of acronyms in their resume, not "good" resumes. It makes everyone liars to some degree as well, since it's not possible to be an expert in everything they ask.
You are a manager right? You have any people that you manage? Give a couple of your senior guys a half hour a day to sift through resumes with you for a few days? Managing is also about finding creative solutions to problems.