You don't need to memorize those libraries, though. Knowing the core language is enough to get started; the libraries can be searched as needed, which is simple enough since the documentation is available in electronic format and standard HTML for that (at least for Java, dunno about C#).
It is indeed available in electronic format. However, while you don't need to *memorize* all of the libraries, it's a very very good idea to learn them well enough that you know roughly what is where. It saves you a great deal of time in the long run, because otherwise, you'd spend too much time digging through the docs trying to find the thing that you need.
Regarding the debugger - learn to use one if you code much at all. It will make your life easier. They didn't teach it in a class where I went. I had to learn to use it on my own by reading docs, playing with it, and asking intelligent questions, and it was well worth it.
The thing that gets me is how people freak when they have to learn a language like C on their own.
The book on the language, written by the people who created it, is less than 300 pages. It really is pretty easy (though, as I said, it takes time to get *good* at it). It's honestly one of the smallest programming books I've ever owned.
I found it more time consuming to learn Java and C# because the libraries go on forever (though the basics are still pretty much the same as in any other OO language).
The real fun, if you ask my honest opinion, is learning things about C++ by reading Stroustrup's book which is both rather long (you could beat people to death with the hard cover) and also very in-depth. A few friends have decided that it makes the most sense after one has attained a Master's degree in CS.
Nice try on getting him to hack on a driver, though. Somehow, however, I don't think he's ready for that just yet:P
Someone I knew went through the drive through at one of the local fast food joints. There was a sign on the window that said "Condiments Available On Request", so he asked her for some condiments.
She just kind of looked at him and said "We don't sell those here..."
Thus it would have been useful to have been taught C, though I can see why they would want to teach us Java, if we never use it in our later classes it seems to be a waste.
C is extremely easy to pick up, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it will take a while to get *good* at it, but getting started is pretty easy. Grab a copy of K&R C, read it, and play a bit. That's how I learned most of it when our projects were in it.
As for why they taught you Java, it's because a lot of modern languages work like Java. They'll teach you other things too.
The intro classes (minus the very first one, which was in Pascal) where I went were in C++, then there were classes that used C (or a mix of C and C++ and a few assorted other things like lex and yacc in my operating systems and internetworking classes), one in assembly, one or two in scheme, etc etc etc.
Over the course of your college career, you'll probably learn a number of languages, most of which they won't lead you through by the hand. You'll basically have to pick up a book, play with code, and ask intelligent questions, just like in the real world (sometimes you'll literally find yourself learning a language just for one or two programs someone else wrote that you have to maintain after they leave).
I can see how that would be aggravating. Having conflicting personalities on a team can be a real pain.
However, I would advocate pulling the telecommuters back into work on occasion for a different reason - socializing and networking (no, not the computer kind). I know that may sound weird, but it's important. You should get to know and interact with the people you work around for a few reasons.
* It often improves your visibility, which is a positive thing when it comes time for raises, etc and often improves your chances of not being the one who gets downsized when things get rough. Otherwise, you're just a faceless part of the system and a lot of bosses operate on the visibility principle - if they don't see you, you either aren't important or you aren't doing your job.
* It helps members of your team, and fellow employees in the company outside of your immediate team, to feel more like a team. For some people that's important. I'll admit that there are times that I really want to feel a connection with the people I work with (there are, of course, times I want to hide as well, but you'll have that).
* Your connections at work can help you long after you leave the company. Most vacancies are filled though referrals, not through resume submissions. The reason getting to know and interact with your peers is important in this case is that people tend to want people they know/like to succeed and they'll help you get there.
* Sometimes it really is easier to transmit information in 5 minutes in person than it is in a much longer period of time via phone, email, etc even if you don't realize you're doing it. People are inspired by the weirdest things and sometimes we really do just need a sounding board to get our thoughts out (heck, I remember a story of one tech support team that had a stuffed bear users had to tell their problems to before going to a tech. Apparently it cut down on incidents dramatically because it weeded out a lot of the "duh" cases when people realized their own answers by simply stating the problem out loud).
* As counterintuitive as it may seem, sometimes work isn't about just doing the job. Sometimes the more important part of it is the personal factor, and you lose a lot of that when telecommuting. Even for a sysadmin.
As far as your extroverted co-worker driving you nuts with stories, try talking with him about it. Politely and calmly. It often does wonders.
The thing is that it isn't necessarily a matter of introverts and extroverts though there are places where that is indeed the case.
I've found that, in a lot of situations, people working around each other do better work than they do working alone because they tend to rub off on each other. They pick up things from each other - be it random pieces of useful information, the desire to learn something, or a more positive attitude about the day (unfortunately, the opposite is also true. One downer can suck the life out of everyone).
The important thing is to have a team that has good cohesion. They should compliment each other in skill sets and personalities. When you have that (and, unfortunately, it isn't always that common), you have a group that is a heck of a lot better than the people are by themselves and they all benefit from it, as does the company.
As far as introversion and extroversion goes, I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm comfortable in pretty much any social situation (everything from goth clubs to formal dinners) but I like my time alone as well (usually at the lake or walking in the woods).
As someone who witnessed a two-hour long nerf-war in the office last time I dropped in, I am completely thankful I work from home where my largest distraction is the hum of the air conditioner and the case of coke zero in the dorm fridge next to my desk.
There is something to be said for those kinds of distractions provided they don't happen *all* of the time - they are a great team building exercise. This is especially true in stressful or creative environments.
Even discounting the fact that you're working with them now and cohesive teams tend to do better quality work and have a higher chance of projects succeeding, remember that the people you are working with now can be your key to different jobs in the future.
Socializing is important.
We're social creatures whether we like to admit it or not. Play time is important for a lot of things (including bonding), and, if you're in an office, you're spending 8 hours a day with these people.
I was a career software developer before joining the military, and let me tell you: I definitely get more out of 70 hours than 40.
You were also one of those people who really bought into what the military was feeding you, weren't you? I grew up around mil and ex-mil people, and I have to tell you (and they'd agree) that that isn't healthy. In fact, doing that, you end up being the starry-eyed kid that goes off to die for his country. That's not your job - it's to make the other guy die for his.
The cynics are the ones who generally fare best in a time of war because they don't go off and take every stupid risk.
As far as not living to work, I'm a personality type that really does live to work. I can't stand being idle, and derive great personal satisfaction from producing as much as I can in any job.
I know you think that you know everything because you're almost 27 and all, but I have to tell you that you're displaying extremely foolish characteristics and opinions.
You're one of those people that facilitate companies trying to take everyone's lives in return for a paycheck and you don't seem to understand that not only is it hurting you and everyone around you, but you really *aren't* as good at hour 70 as you are at hour 40.
Keep going this way, and when you look back on your life, none of your memories are going to matter because you were always at work and never actually living. On top of that, it's a recipe for burnout by the time you're 35, and when that happens, they'll kick you to the curb and replace you with another starry-eyed kid that was just like you while you wonder what happened because you lived your life for the company.
However, I know you're not going to listen, so go ahead and throw away your entire productive life on a company that doesn't care about you.
Considering that's an integral part of their job, I view it as a positive that their forecast skills are that good. Good sales and marketing people are a wonderful thing as long as they're working *with* you. (On the other hand, I've seen some crazed, totally unreasonable ones too)
I just thought the special case needed to be stated because it was relevant.
The great one is where they refuse to let you use headphones because people complain that they don't think you're paying attention to them when they come in to ask some random question while you're trying to concentrate on getting things done. =]
If you're confident in yourself, be creative, too. Offer to work contract for hire just to prove your worth.
That's a nice idea in theory, but around here "contract to hire" generally never gets to the "hire" part no matter who proposes that deal.
In the case of it being offered by companies, it's generally to get people to work for them who aren't really interested in contract work by the thought that they will be a regular employee in six months. If it's offered by the potential employee, it's generally assumed by the business that they're just going to jump ship to another contract at the end of the contract period, so they treat them like dirt because they are, in the mind of the company, "extended" short-timers.
As I said, that's the state of things in the general area I'm in. It may be different where you are.
Well, it is called welcome to the reality of the real working world.
I have news for you. 70 hour work weeks should not be a part of anyone's "real working world" unless they are the owner or higher level exec in charge of the business (and then that is done by their choice).
What you're advocating is throwing away almost all of your waking hours for a job - something that doesn't love you, doesn't even care about you, can be done by someone else if you leave, and on the whole, you don't get any more out of at 70 hours than you do at 40.
There is a lesson you need to learn, and that lesson is drawing reasonable boundaries. Trading your whole, active life for a paycheck is a bad deal no matter how you look at it unless you are only doing it for a couple of years so that you never have to do it again.
You work in order to obtain the money needed to live your life. You don't live in order to work.
A buggy half assed product delivered early will yield by far more sales than a complete product will that comes to market a couple quarters later.
While often true if the product is reasonably functional, this is not always the case.
There are cases where being first can hurt as you just blazed the trail for larger companies, proving there was indeed a market there.
There are also cases where the "half assed product" as you put it, is so horrible that people will wait for a better one. IBM's OS/2 comes to mind. It came out a great deal earlier than Windows NT (many months, in fact) but was so buggy and horrid that entire magazine articles were written on how to configure a printer (and people complain about Linux. This was orders of magnitude worse).
It was so bad that anyone who could spring for a machine with the required RAM went with NT.
I don't get this idea of hiring people and then not giving the an environment that the can do the job you are paying good money for.
Part of it is because a lot of managers, HR people, and furniture police don't understand what people writing code actually need. All they see are a bunch of people typing all day, and typists don't need offices, privacy, quiet, etc. They just need a desk and a computer, so that must be all that anyone who just types all day needs.
But if my client directs that large a revenue stream to me, why can't the judge find him the problem and my simply the same pawn as my employee?
Because you're the employer. The client does not run your company. Depending on how the laws work where you are, there is a chance that if they threatened to jerk the contract for that reason and leave you high and dry, you could take them to court for breach of contract or something similar.
But would you consider benig my partner to act as manager/human resources/hiring/firing/dealing with the employees so that I can have a responsible and knowledgable person do it, and not be stuck with my having to figure it out?
Honestly? No. First, I really doubt that I am in your area. Second, while I have helped prevent and repair train wrecks in the past, yours is not one I would want to deal with.
I'm glad that when you dropped your client -- which always reflects well on you as a supllier -- your helped your employees get another job when you couldn't pay them.
You mis-read, kiddo. I said that I have fired companies of whom *I* was a client for behavior like that when I found out about it, and offered to help their people who were doing work for me jobs where they were treated better. In addition to losing my business, they lost the business of various friends, family members (many of whom have businesses), and business contacts of ours as well as a number of their good employees. All of this was a result of them treating their people the way you claim you treat yours.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of those businesses went under as a result of their actions with regard to their employees.
And no, I don't have any social skills. I never have. Basically, I've never figured out how to relate to the majority of humans, and I doubt I'll ever be able to relate to teh drunk, high, debt-ridden average joe that enjoys hunting wild-life and hip-hop. My strength is not dealing with people
I hate to break it to you, but good social skills are a very important part of running a successful business and point yet again to the strong possibility that you are talking out of your rear. They help you get and keep good customers and good clients.
Contrary to what you have posted previously, respect is *not* something you pay for and is *extremely* valuable to have from both employees and clients. It's something any good business person understands.
Regarding the whole religious thing, I've said it elsewhere, I'll re-iterate it here. I never said that someone's religion mattered to me. What I said was that their schedule does. If their lifestyle can't meet the schedule required by the job, then they can't take the job.
You really seem to enjoy having your head up your behind. You have indeed stated that you would discriminate against employees on the basis of their religion. For your benefit, since you claim to want to learn (though, your actions have already proven otherwise), I'll do this in a quote and response format.
You - "My refusing to hire a programmer because of her religion is perfectly reasonable. In my case, our development schedules often include days that are religious holidays."
Response - That is discrimination on the basis of religion and is illegal. It does, in fact, point to the fact that you care about what religion your people are. Furthermore, you may never have learned this, but most people who celebrate holidays will work the same day and celebrate after work. Otherwise, they will use a vacation day to cover the absence.
You do not rule their lives. You only have a say over the time that they work for you.
You - "So if you work for me, you're going to have to understand that yeah, I'll have to restrict your religious activity, and your political out-cry."
Response - Again, this is you stating that you discriminate on the basis of religion and furthermore do not understand the way that people deal with worship and work.
You just keep pointing out time and again that you want to pay for 40 hours a week and get them 24/7. In fact, you've basically stated so explicitly in your other postings.
So I guess I'm saying that I'd love to hear about that time when you had to drop a client. Last year, I had a client personnally insult one of my employees for absolutely no reason.
I'll give you another piece of very valuable advice for free. What you are describing in this situation was *not* a good client (as you go on to admit yourself), *and* they caused you to lose a good employee. One very large thing that you consistently miss is the fact that, provided you have good people and the social skills required, you can almost *always* get new clients unless you are in an economically depressed area.
I also have to say that if they were trying to exploit technical loopho
I find it interesting to note that you post your request anonymously. Incidentally, you'll also notice that someone else has actually done just that on my behalf.
Okay, *I'll* do it, and I'm most certainly not anonymous. What is your company name and location?
Quite frankly, with two exceptions, all of my clients will be satisfied with my commentary -- hey, I've spent most of it saying that I'll do what they ask, and that they are my top priority. Only my employees could become upset by the things I've said here.
I call BS. If I were a client of yours, and I found out about how you think of and treat your people, I'd drop your ass like a stone. Before you say that I'm just talking out of my hat, let me inform you that I've done exactly that before and helped the good employees that were working for me on the projects in question find a better place to go if they wanted because *nobody* deserves that crap.
Just because you pay their check doesn't mean you are given free reign to run their lives outside of work, and it *certainly* doesn't mean that you can curtail their religious practices or discriminate against them because they have a family and consider it important to the point that they spend their time off with them instead of on your leash.
Work-life balance is damned important for a large number of reasons, none of which you seem to get.
However, it would be irresponsible of me to simply dump my contact information here.
Again, I call BS. Many of us have our contact information here. Doing so, especially when you spout the crap that you do and claim that it wouldn't affect your business is simply putting your money where your mouth is.
But if you are willing to discuss things professionally, then I'm happy to teach and I'm happy to learn.
You do not come across to me as professional in the slightest. In fact, you seem to be little more than a petty tyrant who thinks that the world revolves around him and that the people who work for you (assuming that you actually own a company, which I am currently having a hard time believing) should be your happy slaves at all times instead of doing their jobs for you and having the rest of their lives to themselves.
You've shown a supreme lack of business sense and social skills in your postings.
Does that answer your question?
No. What will answer my question (I am not the AC poster, by the way), is you stepping up, putting your money where your mouth is and telling me your company name and contact information so I can avoid you both as a possible supplier and potential employer as well as advising my friends to do the same.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the "Get them to work for US" experiments didn't work out as well as they'd hoped?
In some cases, I'm sure they still had problems. However, as a couple of anecdotal data points, I've known a couple of people that were busted back in the early-mid nineties and given that choice. They both worked out quite well.
A lot of it, I think, comes down to why they were doing it - exploration and learning vs trying to defraud, etc.
It used to be common practice that hackers and phreaks that got caught were given a choice:
Work for us at a good salary or we have you thrown in jail for most of the rest of your life.
It's not really a blind faith issue (decent pun use though). They realized that anyone good enough to figure out how to circumvent their systems could be a useful asset to their company from both a technical and security standpoint provided they could be "domesticated" so to speak.
Now they just tend to go apes**t any time someone exploits one of their systems and scream "lock them away for ever and ever!!!111" It's a shame to see them go downhill like that.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the first thing I'd do if an employee sued my is fire their ass.
And then you'd face federal charges as well as further lawsuits from those employees for violating things like whistle blower laws.
Be glad you don't own a company because you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
This is a common misconception with a lot of people.
Salaried does not automatically mean exempt.
There are two classes of salaried employees - salaried exempt and salaried non-exempt.
You don't need to memorize those libraries, though. Knowing the core language is enough to get started; the libraries can be searched as needed, which is simple enough since the documentation is available in electronic format and standard HTML for that (at least for Java, dunno about C#).
It is indeed available in electronic format. However, while you don't need to *memorize* all of the libraries, it's a very very good idea to learn them well enough that you know roughly what is where. It saves you a great deal of time in the long run, because otherwise, you'd spend too much time digging through the docs trying to find the thing that you need.
Regarding the debugger - learn to use one if you code much at all. It will make your life easier. They didn't teach it in a class where I went. I had to learn to use it on my own by reading docs, playing with it, and asking intelligent questions, and it was well worth it.
The thing that gets me is how people freak when they have to learn a language like C on their own.
:P
The book on the language, written by the people who created it, is less than 300 pages. It really is pretty easy (though, as I said, it takes time to get *good* at it). It's honestly one of the smallest programming books I've ever owned.
I found it more time consuming to learn Java and C# because the libraries go on forever (though the basics are still pretty much the same as in any other OO language).
The real fun, if you ask my honest opinion, is learning things about C++ by reading Stroustrup's book which is both rather long (you could beat people to death with the hard cover) and also very in-depth. A few friends have decided that it makes the most sense after one has attained a Master's degree in CS.
Nice try on getting him to hack on a driver, though. Somehow, however, I don't think he's ready for that just yet
Someone I knew went through the drive through at one of the local fast food joints. There was a sign on the window that said "Condiments Available On Request", so he asked her for some condiments.
She just kind of looked at him and said "We don't sell those here..."
Thus it would have been useful to have been taught C, though I can see why they would want to teach us Java, if we never use it in our later classes it seems to be a waste.
C is extremely easy to pick up, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it will take a while to get *good* at it, but getting started is pretty easy. Grab a copy of K&R C, read it, and play a bit. That's how I learned most of it when our projects were in it.
As for why they taught you Java, it's because a lot of modern languages work like Java. They'll teach you other things too.
The intro classes (minus the very first one, which was in Pascal) where I went were in C++, then there were classes that used C (or a mix of C and C++ and a few assorted other things like lex and yacc in my operating systems and internetworking classes), one in assembly, one or two in scheme, etc etc etc.
Over the course of your college career, you'll probably learn a number of languages, most of which they won't lead you through by the hand. You'll basically have to pick up a book, play with code, and ask intelligent questions, just like in the real world (sometimes you'll literally find yourself learning a language just for one or two programs someone else wrote that you have to maintain after they leave).
There was a time I'd have said exactly that about DEC and Dell.
Um... Dell doesn't own DEC. Compaq bought what was left of DEC and now they're part of HP, not Dell.
I can see how that would be aggravating. Having conflicting personalities on a team can be a real pain.
However, I would advocate pulling the telecommuters back into work on occasion for a different reason - socializing and networking (no, not the computer kind). I know that may sound weird, but it's important. You should get to know and interact with the people you work around for a few reasons.
* It often improves your visibility, which is a positive thing when it comes time for raises, etc and often improves your chances of not being the one who gets downsized when things get rough. Otherwise, you're just a faceless part of the system and a lot of bosses operate on the visibility principle - if they don't see you, you either aren't important or you aren't doing your job.
* It helps members of your team, and fellow employees in the company outside of your immediate team, to feel more like a team. For some people that's important. I'll admit that there are times that I really want to feel a connection with the people I work with (there are, of course, times I want to hide as well, but you'll have that).
* Your connections at work can help you long after you leave the company. Most vacancies are filled though referrals, not through resume submissions. The reason getting to know and interact with your peers is important in this case is that people tend to want people they know/like to succeed and they'll help you get there.
* Sometimes it really is easier to transmit information in 5 minutes in person than it is in a much longer period of time via phone, email, etc even if you don't realize you're doing it. People are inspired by the weirdest things and sometimes we really do just need a sounding board to get our thoughts out (heck, I remember a story of one tech support team that had a stuffed bear users had to tell their problems to before going to a tech. Apparently it cut down on incidents dramatically because it weeded out a lot of the "duh" cases when people realized their own answers by simply stating the problem out loud).
* As counterintuitive as it may seem, sometimes work isn't about just doing the job. Sometimes the more important part of it is the personal factor, and you lose a lot of that when telecommuting. Even for a sysadmin.
As far as your extroverted co-worker driving you nuts with stories, try talking with him about it. Politely and calmly. It often does wonders.
The thing is that it isn't necessarily a matter of introverts and extroverts though there are places where that is indeed the case.
I've found that, in a lot of situations, people working around each other do better work than they do working alone because they tend to rub off on each other. They pick up things from each other - be it random pieces of useful information, the desire to learn something, or a more positive attitude about the day (unfortunately, the opposite is also true. One downer can suck the life out of everyone).
The important thing is to have a team that has good cohesion. They should compliment each other in skill sets and personalities. When you have that (and, unfortunately, it isn't always that common), you have a group that is a heck of a lot better than the people are by themselves and they all benefit from it, as does the company.
As far as introversion and extroversion goes, I guess I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm comfortable in pretty much any social situation (everything from goth clubs to formal dinners) but I like my time alone as well (usually at the lake or walking in the woods).
As someone who witnessed a two-hour long nerf-war in the office last time I dropped in, I am completely thankful I work from home where my largest distraction is the hum of the air conditioner and the case of coke zero in the dorm fridge next to my desk.
There is something to be said for those kinds of distractions provided they don't happen *all* of the time - they are a great team building exercise. This is especially true in stressful or creative environments.
Even discounting the fact that you're working with them now and cohesive teams tend to do better quality work and have a higher chance of projects succeeding, remember that the people you are working with now can be your key to different jobs in the future.
Socializing is important.
We're social creatures whether we like to admit it or not. Play time is important for a lot of things (including bonding), and, if you're in an office, you're spending 8 hours a day with these people.
I was a career software developer before joining the military, and let me tell you: I definitely get more out of 70 hours than 40.
You were also one of those people who really bought into what the military was feeding you, weren't you? I grew up around mil and ex-mil people, and I have to tell you (and they'd agree) that that isn't healthy. In fact, doing that, you end up being the starry-eyed kid that goes off to die for his country. That's not your job - it's to make the other guy die for his.
The cynics are the ones who generally fare best in a time of war because they don't go off and take every stupid risk.
As far as not living to work, I'm a personality type that really does live to work. I can't stand being idle, and derive great personal satisfaction from producing as much as I can in any job.
I know you think that you know everything because you're almost 27 and all, but I have to tell you that you're displaying extremely foolish characteristics and opinions.
You're one of those people that facilitate companies trying to take everyone's lives in return for a paycheck and you don't seem to understand that not only is it hurting you and everyone around you, but you really *aren't* as good at hour 70 as you are at hour 40.
Keep going this way, and when you look back on your life, none of your memories are going to matter because you were always at work and never actually living. On top of that, it's a recipe for burnout by the time you're 35, and when that happens, they'll kick you to the curb and replace you with another starry-eyed kid that was just like you while you wonder what happened because you lived your life for the company.
However, I know you're not going to listen, so go ahead and throw away your entire productive life on a company that doesn't care about you.
Considering that's an integral part of their job, I view it as a positive that their forecast skills are that good. Good sales and marketing people are a wonderful thing as long as they're working *with* you. (On the other hand, I've seen some crazed, totally unreasonable ones too)
I just thought the special case needed to be stated because it was relevant.
The great one is where they refuse to let you use headphones because people complain that they don't think you're paying attention to them when they come in to ask some random question while you're trying to concentrate on getting things done. =]
If you're confident in yourself, be creative, too. Offer to work contract for hire just to prove your worth.
That's a nice idea in theory, but around here "contract to hire" generally never gets to the "hire" part no matter who proposes that deal.
In the case of it being offered by companies, it's generally to get people to work for them who aren't really interested in contract work by the thought that they will be a regular employee in six months. If it's offered by the potential employee, it's generally assumed by the business that they're just going to jump ship to another contract at the end of the contract period, so they treat them like dirt because they are, in the mind of the company, "extended" short-timers.
As I said, that's the state of things in the general area I'm in. It may be different where you are.
Well, it is called welcome to the reality of the real working world.
I have news for you. 70 hour work weeks should not be a part of anyone's "real working world" unless they are the owner or higher level exec in charge of the business (and then that is done by their choice).
What you're advocating is throwing away almost all of your waking hours for a job - something that doesn't love you, doesn't even care about you, can be done by someone else if you leave, and on the whole, you don't get any more out of at 70 hours than you do at 40.
There is a lesson you need to learn, and that lesson is drawing reasonable boundaries. Trading your whole, active life for a paycheck is a bad deal no matter how you look at it unless you are only doing it for a couple of years so that you never have to do it again.
You work in order to obtain the money needed to live your life. You don't live in order to work.
A buggy half assed product delivered early will yield by far more sales than a complete product will that comes to market a couple quarters later.
While often true if the product is reasonably functional, this is not always the case.
There are cases where being first can hurt as you just blazed the trail for larger companies, proving there was indeed a market there.
There are also cases where the "half assed product" as you put it, is so horrible that people will wait for a better one. IBM's OS/2 comes to mind. It came out a great deal earlier than Windows NT (many months, in fact) but was so buggy and horrid that entire magazine articles were written on how to configure a printer (and people complain about Linux. This was orders of magnitude worse).
It was so bad that anyone who could spring for a machine with the required RAM went with NT.
I don't get this idea of hiring people and then not giving the an environment that the can do the job you are paying good money for.
Part of it is because a lot of managers, HR people, and furniture police don't understand what people writing code actually need. All they see are a bunch of people typing all day, and typists don't need offices, privacy, quiet, etc. They just need a desk and a computer, so that must be all that anyone who just types all day needs.
Languages like And Such, and the PHP.
Security and computer science as explained by a valley girl?
Like totally!
Good luck with that.
But if my client directs that large a revenue stream to me, why can't the judge find him the problem and my simply the same pawn as my employee?
Because you're the employer. The client does not run your company. Depending on how the laws work where you are, there is a chance that if they threatened to jerk the contract for that reason and leave you high and dry, you could take them to court for breach of contract or something similar.
But would you consider benig my partner to act as manager/human resources/hiring/firing/dealing with the employees so that I can have a responsible and knowledgable person do it, and not be stuck with my having to figure it out?
Honestly? No. First, I really doubt that I am in your area. Second, while I have helped prevent and repair train wrecks in the past, yours is not one I would want to deal with.
I'm glad that when you dropped your client -- which always reflects well on you as a supllier -- your helped your employees get another job when you couldn't pay them.
You mis-read, kiddo. I said that I have fired companies of whom *I* was a client for behavior like that when I found out about it, and offered to help their people who were doing work for me jobs where they were treated better. In addition to losing my business, they lost the business of various friends, family members (many of whom have businesses), and business contacts of ours as well as a number of their good employees. All of this was a result of them treating their people the way you claim you treat yours.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of those businesses went under as a result of their actions with regard to their employees.
And no, I don't have any social skills. I never have. Basically, I've never figured out how to relate to the majority of humans, and I doubt I'll ever be able to relate to teh drunk, high, debt-ridden average joe that enjoys hunting wild-life and hip-hop. My strength is not dealing with people
I hate to break it to you, but good social skills are a very important part of running a successful business and point yet again to the strong possibility that you are talking out of your rear. They help you get and keep good customers and good clients.
Contrary to what you have posted previously, respect is *not* something you pay for and is *extremely* valuable to have from both employees and clients. It's something any good business person understands.
Regarding the whole religious thing, I've said it elsewhere, I'll re-iterate it here. I never said that someone's religion mattered to me. What I said was that their schedule does. If their lifestyle can't meet the schedule required by the job, then they can't take the job.
You really seem to enjoy having your head up your behind. You have indeed stated that you would discriminate against employees on the basis of their religion. For your benefit, since you claim to want to learn (though, your actions have already proven otherwise), I'll do this in a quote and response format.
You - "My refusing to hire a programmer because of her religion is perfectly reasonable. In my case, our development schedules often include days that are religious holidays."
Response - That is discrimination on the basis of religion and is illegal. It does, in fact, point to the fact that you care about what religion your people are. Furthermore, you may never have learned this, but most people who celebrate holidays will work the same day and celebrate after work. Otherwise, they will use a vacation day to cover the absence.
You do not rule their lives. You only have a say over the time that they work for you.
You - "So if you work for me, you're going to have to understand that yeah, I'll have to restrict your religious activity, and your political out-cry."
Response - Again, this is you stating that you discriminate on the basis of religion and furthermore do not understand the way that people deal with worship and work.
You just keep pointing out time and again that you want to pay for 40 hours a week and get them 24/7. In fact, you've basically stated so explicitly in your other postings.
So I guess I'm saying that I'd love to hear about that time when you had to drop a client. Last year, I had a client personnally insult one of my employees for absolutely no reason.
I'll give you another piece of very valuable advice for free. What you are describing in this situation was *not* a good client (as you go on to admit yourself), *and* they caused you to lose a good employee. One very large thing that you consistently miss is the fact that, provided you have good people and the social skills required, you can almost *always* get new clients unless you are in an economically depressed area.
I also have to say that if they were trying to exploit technical loopho
I find it interesting to note that you post your request anonymously. Incidentally, you'll also notice that someone else has actually done just that on my behalf.
Okay, *I'll* do it, and I'm most certainly not anonymous. What is your company name and location?
Quite frankly, with two exceptions, all of my clients will be satisfied with my commentary -- hey, I've spent most of it saying that I'll do what they ask, and that they are my top priority. Only my employees could become upset by the things I've said here.
I call BS. If I were a client of yours, and I found out about how you think of and treat your people, I'd drop your ass like a stone. Before you say that I'm just talking out of my hat, let me inform you that I've done exactly that before and helped the good employees that were working for me on the projects in question find a better place to go if they wanted because *nobody* deserves that crap.
Just because you pay their check doesn't mean you are given free reign to run their lives outside of work, and it *certainly* doesn't mean that you can curtail their religious practices or discriminate against them because they have a family and consider it important to the point that they spend their time off with them instead of on your leash.
Work-life balance is damned important for a large number of reasons, none of which you seem to get.
However, it would be irresponsible of me to simply dump my contact information here.
Again, I call BS. Many of us have our contact information here. Doing so, especially when you spout the crap that you do and claim that it wouldn't affect your business is simply putting your money where your mouth is.
But if you are willing to discuss things professionally, then I'm happy to teach and I'm happy to learn.
You do not come across to me as professional in the slightest. In fact, you seem to be little more than a petty tyrant who thinks that the world revolves around him and that the people who work for you (assuming that you actually own a company, which I am currently having a hard time believing) should be your happy slaves at all times instead of doing their jobs for you and having the rest of their lives to themselves.
You've shown a supreme lack of business sense and social skills in your postings.
Does that answer your question?
No. What will answer my question (I am not the AC poster, by the way), is you stepping up, putting your money where your mouth is and telling me your company name and contact information so I can avoid you both as a possible supplier and potential employer as well as advising my friends to do the same.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the "Get them to work for US" experiments didn't work out as well as they'd hoped?
In some cases, I'm sure they still had problems. However, as a couple of anecdotal data points, I've known a couple of people that were busted back in the early-mid nineties and given that choice. They both worked out quite well.
A lot of it, I think, comes down to why they were doing it - exploration and learning vs trying to defraud, etc.
Anybody know what happened to The Mentor? (the Phrack magazine guru)
Here's his site according to his wikipedia article
It used to be common practice that hackers and phreaks that got caught were given a choice:
Work for us at a good salary or we have you thrown in jail for most of the rest of your life.
It's not really a blind faith issue (decent pun use though). They realized that anyone good enough to figure out how to circumvent their systems could be a useful asset to their company from both a technical and security standpoint provided they could be "domesticated" so to speak.
Now they just tend to go apes**t any time someone exploits one of their systems and scream "lock them away for ever and ever!!!111" It's a shame to see them go downhill like that.