I don't know that Firefox is about to go down in flames. Just taking a quick glance at this page shows that Firefox holds a 31% share. There are various places that have historical data on browser penetration and they all show Firefox still increasing or holding steady. Chrome and Safari are gaining ground, but it seems to be all at the expense of Internet Explorer.
On the user side of things, I just can't see people leaving Firefox in droves. I think Firefox users come in two varieties. The tech types that push Firefox and the people who get advice from said techies. I know this is a drop in the bucket, but I've gotten at least 50 people to switch over to it. Sometimes by using threats like "If you continue to use IE, I will know. I will then charge you Geek Squad rates to fix your computer." For some it was a bit painful trying to explain "Yes, Firefox is the same Internet as the Blue E icon" but turned out fine once they got that concept. Unless Firefox became a security nightmare or quit following web standards there is no reason for me to tell people "Hey, that Firefox thing? Quit using it. Use this Chrome thing instead."
Myself? I'm a creature of habit in some ways. I've played with Chrome a bit but I did not notice these huge speed differences. I don't see Chrome as having a "Killer App" right now. I'm sticking with Firefox. I like it. I like the config. It is reasonably secure.
My entire point being...I think if they keep their user base they will be able to find some alternative revenue streams and as explained above, i do think they will keep their user base.
While sponsoring a child's education in a third world country is indeed something nice you are doing to society....that doesn't really seem to be on the table here. The GP wants to do something for himself.
I don't think getting a tattoo nowadays screams "I'm a sheep". Maybe he really likes the idea of getting one. Nothing wrong with that. And no, I do not have a single tattoo.
Yeah, I always wonder why men can't get a decent amount of time off when they have a child. I mean, C'mon. Your first daughter or son gets brought into the world and your choices are to just go back to work or use some of your 10 vacation days (Typically it will be younger people having children, and younger people have less vacation due to being at a company for a shorter time) for the year to be with your family. Not to mention be there to help your wife who just passed an entire human being through her vagina.
I worked at a place where a guy wanted to take off for a week. Only a week. From his vacation time. They harassed him about it asking if he could do a few half days or if he could work from home because they were in the midst of a project. After all, he was just going to be sitting at home! Uhm....It wasn't like he just sprung this on them at the last minute or something. They had 8-9 months warning. He actually ended up dragging his ass in for 3 half days that week. His boss was STILL pretty icy towards him for the next two months. Unreal.
Yeah, the attitude towards women in the workplace can be infuriating at times. At my first IT job, I was lucky enough to work with a young woman who may be the most intelligent person I have ever met. She is a good worker, has a passion for computer stuff, and is just talented all around. Of course, she happens to be attractive as well. We became great friends (and honestly nothing more, I got engaged shortly after I started to work with her and don't know if she would have been interested anyway) and were seen together at work all the time.
Many of the other guys at the company (outside of IT) were always asking me if "I get to tag that shit". I would respond "No, we are just great friends and work very well together" or the like. I'd get a knowing wink and a "Work well together eh? High Five man!" I actually had one exec asking me questions like "Do you think she likes to get fucked? Do you think she is loud?"
On more than one occasion I was told "Send her over here if she needs to do something like bend over under my desk to fix some cords. If I really need something complicated done I would rather you come up. You can bring her too so I have something to look at while you do the real work.
I would try to explain that she was at least as good as me and quite possibly better. They would think I was just trying to be PC or would reinforce their initial belief that she was my piece on the side. The attitude that she couldn't possibly be more than eye candy really pissed me off. She is attractive but she is SO MUCH MORE than just that. Since then, I make sure to judge female coworkers by their abilities and not their looks. I've been very successful in cultivating professional relationships by actually looking women in the EYES when speaking with them.
Possibly, but it is also possible that far more men than women are physically qualified to do things such as mining or logging. As a society we have advanced to allow women to be equal to men, but there are still times when it isn't possible. The two brightest women I know are short, thin, and physically weak. Neither can pick up a 19" CRT. Sure, there are weak men as well but the average man is going to be a good deal stronger (Physically) than the average woman.
Not so fast. People like you always want to just get right into it. Please submit a proposal detailing why the comment is a very high strategic priority and what reading it will mean to the group as a whole.
Next, we would have to determine if you are the one suited to reading the comment. I mean, we have people that are suited to this specific task. I know you are eager but you have a tendency to step on the feet of others.
Since you are obviously not a team player, a meeting will have to be called to determine how to handle your handling of this situation. If it is decided that you will get off with a verbal warning it won't take longer than a week. If we have to issue a written warning, there will be a meeting to elect a committee to write up the warning and another meeting to review what has been written.
All this seems like a lot of work. I'm going to call in the consultants.
I don't see Windows as failing to advance for a long period of time. (Note: I'm too lazy to look up the dates, but they are close to, if not completely accurate)
3.1 was released in 1992. Windows 95 was a significant advancement and was released in 1995. I don't think I need to elaborate here.
Windows 98 was another significant advancement. Things like USB and AGP support are rather important. The Networking was much improved over Windows 95 as well. we are talking about a 1998 release date here.
Windows ME is not really worth discussing. Windows 2000 was obviously an improvement over the 9x line. Released in 2000. I don't think this needs to be expanded on.
Windows XP was released in 2002 but really wasn't usable until Service Pack 2 came out in 2004. Some may argue that Windows XP isn't an improvement over Windows 2000. I look at things like a usable firewall, remote desktop support, networking components necessary for RPCoHTTPS mail, some native SATA support, an actual imaging type thing, the ability to deal with compressed files natively in Windows Explorer, a far better wireless config utility, the first version of Media Center, way more options to configure the desktop environment how you want it (Yes, even basically back to Windows 2000 style), and the ability to use an LCD. Seriously. Try to get an LCD to seem usable under Windows 9x or 2000. Terrible. That is a wide range of improvements. Granted most Linux distros had most of those features way before this, but that isn't the point.
They released a Beta for their next operating system in 2007 and called it Vista. You got some of the good but too much of the bad. Windows 7 actually gets released in 2009. I've been using it a lot. Windows XP isn't really close. I support quite a few Windows 7 machines and they all just work. On 64-bit, too. With the exception of having to dig up a few printer drivers and one issue with a 64-bit Toshiba laptop that needed a firmware update to work....I can't think of a single time I had a serious problem with it. UAC isn't perfect but it is a security help. The changes to the UI (again, some stuff other OSs had for awhile) are fantastic.
I think that Windows has progressed steadily in a lot of ways. They could have done better, but you could say that no matter what they improved.
I work at a smaller place that didn't truly have an IT department when I began consulting for them. When I began I was reporting to the Engineering manager who had been doing some IT stuff and outsourcing what he couldn't figure out. We spent time together figuring out where the company was wasting tons of time and started to do things to make the company more efficient through tech. The President of the company grudgingly tolerated my existence the first few months but when he saw what could actually be done with technology he warmed up to IT really fast.
Eventually I was hired on permanent. The Engineering Manager was pulled out of the IT loop (Somewhat disappointing. It is nice to have someone else to bounce ideas off of.) and I was put in the same position as you. Lateral to Manufacturing/Engineering/Sales Managers, reporting to the President and VP.
That worked out pretty well, but the Execs at my company really do work hard and have a lot on their plate. It was hard to find enough time to discuss things with them. We decided that me working with the Controller as far as day to day stuff was the better option. He has time to listen to my ideas, point out places where he thinks we can use tech to make the company more efficient, and explain to me how aspects of the business operate. I still sit down twice a month with the President/VP and talk bigger picture type stuff. I think this is probably my favorite "Configuration" thus far.
It is a bummer in a way though. I go on a few camping/fishing type trips every summer. Usually there is limited electricity and even more limited options for internet access. During these trips, there is usually down time (usually in the morning) where people will just kind of sit around, drink some coffee, and read magazines. Time, Cosmo, Sports Illustrated, People....whatever. I usually end up grabbing a copy of Time or something to do with Football, but I'd much rather be reading some kind of decent tech magazine. Books of course, are an option, but there is some banter during "reading time" so I have a harder time getting engrossed in a book.
There are also times when I would like to read magazine type material but want to get away from my computer for awhile (I know, I'll turn in my geek card). I like to take a walk or a bike ride down to the park. It would be nice to have some good magazines to take on the run. Yes, I know. I could take my laptop and get cellular internet or find a Wifi access point....but I'd rather not lug around an expensive piece of technology in case of bad weather/theft. If I lose a $7 magazine...big deal.
Most of the time I prefer the technological approach, but sometimes I really would rather have a low tech option available.
I also learned some programming early on in this way...keying in some programs that were printed in books/magazines/whatever. This is assuming of course that you are paying attention to what you are typing and thinking about the commands as you key them in. With that in mind, if you were learning that way back in those days and the program did not work when you were finished....it may not have been all that helpful. Depending on what went wrong you may have no idea what lines of code were causing the problems. This meant you learned a bunch of stuff that was right and some stuff that was wrong with no way of differentiating between the two. That is not really an effective way to learn.;)
I think you have said it pretty well. I might add that in the time leading up to and after you do ask for/receive the raise/help/other you had better be seen working hard. All the time. If he spends half his time socializing, surfing the internet, and generally being unproductive....asking for anything isn't going to fly.
I've seen this pretty often. Someone thinks that they deserve a raise because they are overworked. Yet, they spend 20-25 hours every week clearly not working. This does not go unnoticed by the management and will certainly hurt your chances of getting what you want. Obviously you can take short breaks here and there, but make sure reality reflects your statement.
To some degree I do agree with you. There are a lot of pretty low paid, low skill people in IT. I consulted for a few years just to see different sized environments. I have spent the most time with manufacturing companies though, so these observations may not be valid in another industry.
It seems to me there is always at least one (usually more, depending on the size of the company) IT worker who is getting paid solid money. That person usually has some understanding of what the various departments in the company actually do. That person has some knowledge of the product the company is selling as well as an idea of internal processes. They are the ones that are valuable to the company because while there are thousands (millions) out there that can do generic IT work, they can do the IT work and understand how it needs to be done in the context of the company.
This trend is especially true in smaller companies it would seem. For that reason, I found a small place that had a lot of room for improvement as far as leveraging IT and went right to work understanding how the place functioned. The result? They threw more money at me than I really thought I deserve and let me set my own hours/work from home. They went through 4 or 5 terrible MCSE mill kids before I came along so they think I am something really special that they need to hold onto. To be fair, I do really good work for them.
So yeah, for a lot of IT workers we are starting to see the shift towards $11/hr cogs in the machine. There does seem to be opportunity for motivated and talented people to carve out their own little fiefdoms. Having a certification or whatever just isn't an automatic ticket to success anymore....and in all fairness it never SHOULD have been one.
Most of the major manufacturers have been dumbing down the BIOS for awhile now. Go look in the BIOS of an HP, Dell, or Gateway. Most of the time there are few menu options and very few items that you can actually change.
Obviously this isn't the case for actual home built systems, but I encounter a heck of a lot more name brand PC's than I do white boxes.
It wasn't so much that there was anything wrong with Vista's interface, it was just hard to keep Vista on the machine long enough to get used to it. I myself tried using Vista on two computers and had to deal with it crashing several times a day at times. It had some stability issues. It is hard to embrace an OS that is just going to shut down randomly.
That is the thing. I've begun to spend less and less time with friends because they head right down to the bar, are unable to really hold my interest conversationally after 2 hours of heavy drinking, and will be simply annoying after 4 hours. I used to drink all the time but I got sick of it. Now if I drink 2 beers in a month I drank a lot.
So unless something actually fun is going on, I stay at home way more. Part of the time is doing constructive things....projects around the house, reading, going for a bike ride, perhaps learning something to help my career, perhaps doing some side jobs fixing virus infested computers...and the other part of the time is spent browsing the internet and occasionally playing games. I actually feel a lot better in general than I did when I was constantly going out and interacting with my friends.
I have no problem mentioning it as an introduction to evolution....but in a science class I think it has to end there. Science deals with things that can be proven or disproven. Matters of faith do not fall into that arena. Creationism is not something that can not be tested, peer reviewed, and verified. Maybe it "Feels right" to you and many others, but if we let everything that everyone thought "Felt right" to seep into our science classes we would be in a LOT of trouble.
After all, there are people out there who still think the world is flat! There are the "Vaccines cause autism" and other anti-vax crowds. Should those ideas also be taught in science class simply because some people happen to believe those ideas are correct? Where do you draw the line?
Teaching things that are not science in a science class is pretty dangerous due to the fact that the average person's understanding of the scientific method is pretty dubious. I don't know how to fix that, but I am pretty certain that adding things that aren't science to the science cirriculum isn't going to help the situation.
Of course that is a good point. Since popular religions fail to address anything but the Earth, Moon, and Sun...it does make it seem more obvious that these are stories written by men based on the knowledge that men of those times possessed. Although it is outside the scope of the Holy Books of major religions, it is pretty easy to answer "How/Where/Why did the Universe start?" with "God made it. Because God wanted to create a place for his children to live. Why so large when it is just us? So we could marvel at the Universe God created. Duh!"
It certainly is dangerous basing your worldview on stories written a few thousand years ago...to some extent. Those stories are not completely without merit though. For the most part, they do lay out a pretty decent code of ethics for modern people to follow. I myself and many others don't need ethics dictated by some alleged higher power. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who do seem to need the fear of God to keep them on the right path. Unfortunately some of those people get a little bit too fanatical.
Just a random thought. If basing your worldview on stories written thousands of years ago is problematic...what about basing your system of Government on a framework that was written a few hundred years ago?
The end game for the scientific method is bringing theory into law. Once it hits "Law" status it is pretty much an absolute and indisputable truth. There is the possibility of throwing laws out if we find them to be false, but to my knowledge we have no repealed any scientific laws.
On the other hand, he could be thinking "What the fuck? I flooded the world, sprung the Hebrews from Egypt, smote some cities, and sent my son down to teach these people and die for his sins. He turned water into wine, healed some blind dude, and rose from the dead... and people still didn't believe he was real! How much more fucking proof do these jerks want?"
I think the sword is certain to swing stronger in the other direction. Generally speaking, religious tenants call for maintaining the norm. Science pushes things forward and changes things. For the most part, human beings avoid change and are sometimes terrified of it. They'll champion the norm and oppose things that are new.
I've even seen scientists fight progress. When I was in college there were many older professors who were staunchly against using all the newfangled technology to conduct their research.
I am certainly not religious but I think there is some wiggle room for Religion in terms of our current scientific knowledge. The origins of the universe can be explained pretty well by the big bang theory, but it doesn't really explain how/why/where this extremely dense singularity came into being/where it was exactly. Perhaps someday we will understand more, but for now Religion can try to explain it. To think that there is NOTHING that our current scientific knowledge cannot adequately explain makes it seem as if we already know everything there is to know, which in itself is somewhat of an anti-science stance.
Yeah, that always kind of bugs me about people I know who are "Going to school for computer stuff" but really don't have much curiosity about it at all. Same applies to coworkers I have had who wouldn't turn on their home computers more than once a week. I probably wouldn't care, but when you have to get stuff done around people who have no passion for it the best you can hope for is that they don't get in your way. They certainly won't be coming up with anything clever and won't be able to help you through a problem you can't solve yourself.
You know....I think once you start being concerned with "So much time wasted" when you were younger, you may be taking yourself too seriously (unless you seriously had a gaming/other problem). In my high school/college years I spent a lot of time playing video games, playing D&D/strategy board games, playing basketball, fishing, and getting fucking wasted. None of those activities are really helping me succeed in life, but I ENJOYED them.
I guess if you intend to be the worlds greatest coder/golfer/singer/whatever you need to start early and spend an inordinate amount of time focused on your goal. The rest of us who just want to enjoy life and work at a halfway decent job are going to have time to fritter away. If I had spent my youth simply preparing for adulthood I would be a lot more disappointed in myself.
Rather recently my wife and I had a discussion about this very thing. I think we are past the point where a really smart and motivated person can sit down, think for awhile, buy a few cheap pieces of equipment, and come away with a tremendous scientific achievement. This day in age there are soooo many scientists with equipment and resources that a garage scientist cannot even dream of having.
Oddly, one that was mentioned the he might not want to get into (Astronomy) is one that he might have the best chance of making a new discovery. The universe is a large place. What wasn't there yesterday may be there today. These discoveries might not change the world, but there is a chance to be the first to find something. Here is an article talking of some discoveries by amateurs. I am sure there are more.
I think you pretty much give the best answer. Build/experiment with crap because you enjoy it. Actually DOING science, provided you aren't doing something that may harm yourself or others, is a good thing. Pick something of interest to you and run with it. If you find something that changes the world, great! If not it is likely that it will give you an outlet to enjoy yourself, stimulate your intellect, and feel a sense of accomplishment.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that Firefox is about to go down in flames. Just taking a quick glance at this page shows that Firefox holds a 31% share. There are various places that have historical data on browser penetration and they all show Firefox still increasing or holding steady. Chrome and Safari are gaining ground, but it seems to be all at the expense of Internet Explorer.
On the user side of things, I just can't see people leaving Firefox in droves. I think Firefox users come in two varieties. The tech types that push Firefox and the people who get advice from said techies. I know this is a drop in the bucket, but I've gotten at least 50 people to switch over to it. Sometimes by using threats like "If you continue to use IE, I will know. I will then charge you Geek Squad rates to fix your computer." For some it was a bit painful trying to explain "Yes, Firefox is the same Internet as the Blue E icon" but turned out fine once they got that concept. Unless Firefox became a security nightmare or quit following web standards there is no reason for me to tell people "Hey, that Firefox thing? Quit using it. Use this Chrome thing instead."
Myself? I'm a creature of habit in some ways. I've played with Chrome a bit but I did not notice these huge speed differences. I don't see Chrome as having a "Killer App" right now. I'm sticking with Firefox. I like it. I like the config. It is reasonably secure.
My entire point being...I think if they keep their user base they will be able to find some alternative revenue streams and as explained above, i do think they will keep their user base.
While sponsoring a child's education in a third world country is indeed something nice you are doing to society....that doesn't really seem to be on the table here. The GP wants to do something for himself.
I don't think getting a tattoo nowadays screams "I'm a sheep". Maybe he really likes the idea of getting one. Nothing wrong with that. And no, I do not have a single tattoo.
Yeah, I always wonder why men can't get a decent amount of time off when they have a child. I mean, C'mon. Your first daughter or son gets brought into the world and your choices are to just go back to work or use some of your 10 vacation days (Typically it will be younger people having children, and younger people have less vacation due to being at a company for a shorter time) for the year to be with your family. Not to mention be there to help your wife who just passed an entire human being through her vagina.
I worked at a place where a guy wanted to take off for a week. Only a week. From his vacation time. They harassed him about it asking if he could do a few half days or if he could work from home because they were in the midst of a project. After all, he was just going to be sitting at home! Uhm....It wasn't like he just sprung this on them at the last minute or something. They had 8-9 months warning. He actually ended up dragging his ass in for 3 half days that week. His boss was STILL pretty icy towards him for the next two months. Unreal.
Yeah, the attitude towards women in the workplace can be infuriating at times. At my first IT job, I was lucky enough to work with a young woman who may be the most intelligent person I have ever met. She is a good worker, has a passion for computer stuff, and is just talented all around. Of course, she happens to be attractive as well. We became great friends (and honestly nothing more, I got engaged shortly after I started to work with her and don't know if she would have been interested anyway) and were seen together at work all the time.
Many of the other guys at the company (outside of IT) were always asking me if "I get to tag that shit". I would respond "No, we are just great friends and work very well together" or the like. I'd get a knowing wink and a "Work well together eh? High Five man!" I actually had one exec asking me questions like "Do you think she likes to get fucked? Do you think she is loud?"
On more than one occasion I was told "Send her over here if she needs to do something like bend over under my desk to fix some cords. If I really need something complicated done I would rather you come up. You can bring her too so I have something to look at while you do the real work.
I would try to explain that she was at least as good as me and quite possibly better. They would think I was just trying to be PC or would reinforce their initial belief that she was my piece on the side. The attitude that she couldn't possibly be more than eye candy really pissed me off. She is attractive but she is SO MUCH MORE than just that. Since then, I make sure to judge female coworkers by their abilities and not their looks. I've been very successful in cultivating professional relationships by actually looking women in the EYES when speaking with them.
Possibly, but it is also possible that far more men than women are physically qualified to do things such as mining or logging. As a society we have advanced to allow women to be equal to men, but there are still times when it isn't possible. The two brightest women I know are short, thin, and physically weak. Neither can pick up a 19" CRT. Sure, there are weak men as well but the average man is going to be a good deal stronger (Physically) than the average woman.
Not so fast. People like you always want to just get right into it. Please submit a proposal detailing why the comment is a very high strategic priority and what reading it will mean to the group as a whole.
Next, we would have to determine if you are the one suited to reading the comment. I mean, we have people that are suited to this specific task. I know you are eager but you have a tendency to step on the feet of others.
Since you are obviously not a team player, a meeting will have to be called to determine how to handle your handling of this situation. If it is decided that you will get off with a verbal warning it won't take longer than a week. If we have to issue a written warning, there will be a meeting to elect a committee to write up the warning and another meeting to review what has been written.
All this seems like a lot of work. I'm going to call in the consultants.
I don't see Windows as failing to advance for a long period of time. (Note: I'm too lazy to look up the dates, but they are close to, if not completely accurate)
3.1 was released in 1992. Windows 95 was a significant advancement and was released in 1995. I don't think I need to elaborate here.
Windows 98 was another significant advancement. Things like USB and AGP support are rather important. The Networking was much improved over Windows 95 as well. we are talking about a 1998 release date here.
Windows ME is not really worth discussing. Windows 2000 was obviously an improvement over the 9x line. Released in 2000. I don't think this needs to be expanded on.
Windows XP was released in 2002 but really wasn't usable until Service Pack 2 came out in 2004. Some may argue that Windows XP isn't an improvement over Windows 2000. I look at things like a usable firewall, remote desktop support, networking components necessary for RPCoHTTPS mail, some native SATA support, an actual imaging type thing, the ability to deal with compressed files natively in Windows Explorer, a far better wireless config utility, the first version of Media Center, way more options to configure the desktop environment how you want it (Yes, even basically back to Windows 2000 style), and the ability to use an LCD. Seriously. Try to get an LCD to seem usable under Windows 9x or 2000. Terrible. That is a wide range of improvements. Granted most Linux distros had most of those features way before this, but that isn't the point.
They released a Beta for their next operating system in 2007 and called it Vista. You got some of the good but too much of the bad. Windows 7 actually gets released in 2009. I've been using it a lot. Windows XP isn't really close. I support quite a few Windows 7 machines and they all just work. On 64-bit, too. With the exception of having to dig up a few printer drivers and one issue with a 64-bit Toshiba laptop that needed a firmware update to work....I can't think of a single time I had a serious problem with it. UAC isn't perfect but it is a security help. The changes to the UI (again, some stuff other OSs had for awhile) are fantastic.
I think that Windows has progressed steadily in a lot of ways. They could have done better, but you could say that no matter what they improved.
I work at a smaller place that didn't truly have an IT department when I began consulting for them. When I began I was reporting to the Engineering manager who had been doing some IT stuff and outsourcing what he couldn't figure out. We spent time together figuring out where the company was wasting tons of time and started to do things to make the company more efficient through tech. The President of the company grudgingly tolerated my existence the first few months but when he saw what could actually be done with technology he warmed up to IT really fast.
Eventually I was hired on permanent. The Engineering Manager was pulled out of the IT loop (Somewhat disappointing. It is nice to have someone else to bounce ideas off of.) and I was put in the same position as you. Lateral to Manufacturing/Engineering/Sales Managers, reporting to the President and VP.
That worked out pretty well, but the Execs at my company really do work hard and have a lot on their plate. It was hard to find enough time to discuss things with them. We decided that me working with the Controller as far as day to day stuff was the better option. He has time to listen to my ideas, point out places where he thinks we can use tech to make the company more efficient, and explain to me how aspects of the business operate. I still sit down twice a month with the President/VP and talk bigger picture type stuff. I think this is probably my favorite "Configuration" thus far.
It is a bummer in a way though. I go on a few camping/fishing type trips every summer. Usually there is limited electricity and even more limited options for internet access. During these trips, there is usually down time (usually in the morning) where people will just kind of sit around, drink some coffee, and read magazines. Time, Cosmo, Sports Illustrated, People....whatever. I usually end up grabbing a copy of Time or something to do with Football, but I'd much rather be reading some kind of decent tech magazine. Books of course, are an option, but there is some banter during "reading time" so I have a harder time getting engrossed in a book.
There are also times when I would like to read magazine type material but want to get away from my computer for awhile (I know, I'll turn in my geek card). I like to take a walk or a bike ride down to the park. It would be nice to have some good magazines to take on the run. Yes, I know. I could take my laptop and get cellular internet or find a Wifi access point....but I'd rather not lug around an expensive piece of technology in case of bad weather/theft. If I lose a $7 magazine...big deal.
Most of the time I prefer the technological approach, but sometimes I really would rather have a low tech option available.
I also learned some programming early on in this way...keying in some programs that were printed in books/magazines/whatever. This is assuming of course that you are paying attention to what you are typing and thinking about the commands as you key them in. With that in mind, if you were learning that way back in those days and the program did not work when you were finished....it may not have been all that helpful. Depending on what went wrong you may have no idea what lines of code were causing the problems. This meant you learned a bunch of stuff that was right and some stuff that was wrong with no way of differentiating between the two. That is not really an effective way to learn. ;)
I think you have said it pretty well. I might add that in the time leading up to and after you do ask for/receive the raise/help/other you had better be seen working hard. All the time. If he spends half his time socializing, surfing the internet, and generally being unproductive....asking for anything isn't going to fly.
I've seen this pretty often. Someone thinks that they deserve a raise because they are overworked. Yet, they spend 20-25 hours every week clearly not working. This does not go unnoticed by the management and will certainly hurt your chances of getting what you want. Obviously you can take short breaks here and there, but make sure reality reflects your statement.
To some degree I do agree with you. There are a lot of pretty low paid, low skill people in IT. I consulted for a few years just to see different sized environments. I have spent the most time with manufacturing companies though, so these observations may not be valid in another industry.
It seems to me there is always at least one (usually more, depending on the size of the company) IT worker who is getting paid solid money. That person usually has some understanding of what the various departments in the company actually do. That person has some knowledge of the product the company is selling as well as an idea of internal processes. They are the ones that are valuable to the company because while there are thousands (millions) out there that can do generic IT work, they can do the IT work and understand how it needs to be done in the context of the company.
This trend is especially true in smaller companies it would seem. For that reason, I found a small place that had a lot of room for improvement as far as leveraging IT and went right to work understanding how the place functioned. The result? They threw more money at me than I really thought I deserve and let me set my own hours/work from home. They went through 4 or 5 terrible MCSE mill kids before I came along so they think I am something really special that they need to hold onto. To be fair, I do really good work for them.
So yeah, for a lot of IT workers we are starting to see the shift towards $11/hr cogs in the machine. There does seem to be opportunity for motivated and talented people to carve out their own little fiefdoms. Having a certification or whatever just isn't an automatic ticket to success anymore....and in all fairness it never SHOULD have been one.
The 64-Bit version actually runs. >3GB of RAM is the killer new feature.
Most of the major manufacturers have been dumbing down the BIOS for awhile now. Go look in the BIOS of an HP, Dell, or Gateway. Most of the time there are few menu options and very few items that you can actually change.
Obviously this isn't the case for actual home built systems, but I encounter a heck of a lot more name brand PC's than I do white boxes.
It wasn't so much that there was anything wrong with Vista's interface, it was just hard to keep Vista on the machine long enough to get used to it. I myself tried using Vista on two computers and had to deal with it crashing several times a day at times. It had some stability issues. It is hard to embrace an OS that is just going to shut down randomly.
That is the thing. I've begun to spend less and less time with friends because they head right down to the bar, are unable to really hold my interest conversationally after 2 hours of heavy drinking, and will be simply annoying after 4 hours. I used to drink all the time but I got sick of it. Now if I drink 2 beers in a month I drank a lot.
So unless something actually fun is going on, I stay at home way more. Part of the time is doing constructive things....projects around the house, reading, going for a bike ride, perhaps learning something to help my career, perhaps doing some side jobs fixing virus infested computers...and the other part of the time is spent browsing the internet and occasionally playing games. I actually feel a lot better in general than I did when I was constantly going out and interacting with my friends.
I have no problem mentioning it as an introduction to evolution....but in a science class I think it has to end there. Science deals with things that can be proven or disproven. Matters of faith do not fall into that arena. Creationism is not something that can not be tested, peer reviewed, and verified. Maybe it "Feels right" to you and many others, but if we let everything that everyone thought "Felt right" to seep into our science classes we would be in a LOT of trouble.
After all, there are people out there who still think the world is flat! There are the "Vaccines cause autism" and other anti-vax crowds. Should those ideas also be taught in science class simply because some people happen to believe those ideas are correct? Where do you draw the line?
Teaching things that are not science in a science class is pretty dangerous due to the fact that the average person's understanding of the scientific method is pretty dubious. I don't know how to fix that, but I am pretty certain that adding things that aren't science to the science cirriculum isn't going to help the situation.
Of course that is a good point. Since popular religions fail to address anything but the Earth, Moon, and Sun...it does make it seem more obvious that these are stories written by men based on the knowledge that men of those times possessed. Although it is outside the scope of the Holy Books of major religions, it is pretty easy to answer "How/Where/Why did the Universe start?" with "God made it. Because God wanted to create a place for his children to live. Why so large when it is just us? So we could marvel at the Universe God created. Duh!"
It certainly is dangerous basing your worldview on stories written a few thousand years ago...to some extent. Those stories are not completely without merit though. For the most part, they do lay out a pretty decent code of ethics for modern people to follow. I myself and many others don't need ethics dictated by some alleged higher power. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who do seem to need the fear of God to keep them on the right path. Unfortunately some of those people get a little bit too fanatical.
Just a random thought. If basing your worldview on stories written thousands of years ago is problematic...what about basing your system of Government on a framework that was written a few hundred years ago?
The end game for the scientific method is bringing theory into law. Once it hits "Law" status it is pretty much an absolute and indisputable truth. There is the possibility of throwing laws out if we find them to be false, but to my knowledge we have no repealed any scientific laws.
On the other hand, he could be thinking "What the fuck? I flooded the world, sprung the Hebrews from Egypt, smote some cities, and sent my son down to teach these people and die for his sins. He turned water into wine, healed some blind dude, and rose from the dead... and people still didn't believe he was real! How much more fucking proof do these jerks want?"
I think the sword is certain to swing stronger in the other direction. Generally speaking, religious tenants call for maintaining the norm. Science pushes things forward and changes things. For the most part, human beings avoid change and are sometimes terrified of it. They'll champion the norm and oppose things that are new.
I've even seen scientists fight progress. When I was in college there were many older professors who were staunchly against using all the newfangled technology to conduct their research.
I am certainly not religious but I think there is some wiggle room for Religion in terms of our current scientific knowledge. The origins of the universe can be explained pretty well by the big bang theory, but it doesn't really explain how/why/where this extremely dense singularity came into being/where it was exactly. Perhaps someday we will understand more, but for now Religion can try to explain it. To think that there is NOTHING that our current scientific knowledge cannot adequately explain makes it seem as if we already know everything there is to know, which in itself is somewhat of an anti-science stance.
Yeah, that always kind of bugs me about people I know who are "Going to school for computer stuff" but really don't have much curiosity about it at all. Same applies to coworkers I have had who wouldn't turn on their home computers more than once a week. I probably wouldn't care, but when you have to get stuff done around people who have no passion for it the best you can hope for is that they don't get in your way. They certainly won't be coming up with anything clever and won't be able to help you through a problem you can't solve yourself.
You know....I think once you start being concerned with "So much time wasted" when you were younger, you may be taking yourself too seriously (unless you seriously had a gaming/other problem). In my high school/college years I spent a lot of time playing video games, playing D&D/strategy board games, playing basketball, fishing, and getting fucking wasted. None of those activities are really helping me succeed in life, but I ENJOYED them.
I guess if you intend to be the worlds greatest coder/golfer/singer/whatever you need to start early and spend an inordinate amount of time focused on your goal. The rest of us who just want to enjoy life and work at a halfway decent job are going to have time to fritter away. If I had spent my youth simply preparing for adulthood I would be a lot more disappointed in myself.
Rather recently my wife and I had a discussion about this very thing. I think we are past the point where a really smart and motivated person can sit down, think for awhile, buy a few cheap pieces of equipment, and come away with a tremendous scientific achievement. This day in age there are soooo many scientists with equipment and resources that a garage scientist cannot even dream of having.
Oddly, one that was mentioned the he might not want to get into (Astronomy) is one that he might have the best chance of making a new discovery. The universe is a large place. What wasn't there yesterday may be there today. These discoveries might not change the world, but there is a chance to be the first to find something. Here is an article talking of some discoveries by amateurs. I am sure there are more.
I think you pretty much give the best answer. Build/experiment with crap because you enjoy it. Actually DOING science, provided you aren't doing something that may harm yourself or others, is a good thing. Pick something of interest to you and run with it. If you find something that changes the world, great! If not it is likely that it will give you an outlet to enjoy yourself, stimulate your intellect, and feel a sense of accomplishment.