That's generally true: jobs that are unionized are typically less skill-based, like logistics and assembly. But a server admin is hardly comparable to a design engineer, and I think that this defines the boundary between IT and software design. Because while an auto mechanic and an automotive engineer may both technically be "automotive" jobs, you don't see mechanics being confused with engineers. I think there should be a similar distinction between IT workers (information infrastructure maintenance) and software designers (who write the software that IT people maintain).
Uh, yeah, right. Like a 30 MB attachment can't be sent by some other means, like maybe some kind of file transfer application? It's too bad Mirabilis was bought by AOL, because then the poor Israelis forced to hide in their own homes could talk to one another and transfer files are large as they can store without having to venture outside. Oh, wait..
This is hardly a big deal. It's merely an imaginary milestone that we think is important, but is really completely relevant. Is this any kind of technical feat? No. Is this even useful? Not for the majority of people.
And besides, as a number of people have pointed out already, the title of "first 1 GB e-mail service provider" is taken.
Third, skill as a programmer depends a lot on natural talent, and there's a lot of ego involved. There are lots of really gifted individuals who would rightfully object to being grouped in with people who took a six month course at the local community college.
So don't join the union. If you think you can make it on your own, go ahead. But the way things are looking, that's becoming increasingly more difficult.
Also, in my mind, IT is very different from software development. With IT is basically system maintenance, software design is entirely different. There can obviously be a bit of both in someone's job, but either way, this isn't terrible relevant: A union's members don't have to be homogenous. An auto-worker's union, for example, supports many different people with diverse job functions that may only be indirectly related to building automobiles.
You're outlining reasons why unionization of the IT sector hasn't been widespread, but I think the main one is this: it hasn't been threatened like it is now. When it gets to either unionize or die, I think we'll see a different picture.
I can understand if Apple wants to defend their investments into UI research, since someone directly copying their GUI layouts is copying a lot of work on Apple's part. But I think the whole debate is copying nonfunctional decorative elements: like the "shiny plastic" motif which Apple seems to mesmerize its users with. I believe there was some ruling regarding just what can be considered copyrightable regarding an interface. Does anyone know what those boundaries are?
I think that a direct interface clone would be pretty clear-cut, but if it just 'looks similar,' I think that's less definite.
Ergo, if efficiency is important a command-based interface may be ideal. It may take a little while to get used to, but once you do, you'll be able to get things done much faster. Just take a look at what an experienced AutoCAD user can do with the text interface. Hunting for icons feels excruciatingly slow for someone used to the speed inherent in a text-based command system.
That said, a text-based system would not be ideal for an interface whose users have a high turn-over rate, for example. "Different strokes for different folks."
What's with this obsession with novelty? It's rather disgusting. There are stylistic differences that evolve with time and technology, obviously, but good music is good music. Music of the past doesn't lose its value because it's "old." If it did, it was never good music.
There was a vast amount of music on mp3.com and I doubt anyone's listened to it all. There's still plenty to be discovered, for everybody.
It's because fusion has had a bad track record in the scientific community: there have been many "snake oil" cases where devices which claimed to be based on fusion--specifically, cold fusion--were in fact complete hoaxes. That researchers are being cautious is very understandable. Notice that nobody dares mention that this is "cold" (or at least "cool") fusion.
Also, this isn't a new form of energy. It's just a novel and promising way of tapping the energy released by fusion.
But this certainly does not look like snake oil, and it HAS been replicated several times as the articles report. So I think it's time to get excited!
This reminds me of this project (which has been Slashdotted before) which can be done with a home scanner. But this new Berkeley method is obviously much more advanced.
What the article doesn't mention is how useful this might be. It appears that they have devised a reliable way to trigger a fusion reaction, but is it feasible to use it for electrical generation, for example? I understand that the major problem with fusion reactor research is that they have always consumed more energy than they have produced, making them quite useless for actually generating energy. But since they are not inducing the reaction with high-powered electromagnets as has been done in the past, would this enable the possibility of a true fusion generator?
Linux seems to have that field pretty thoroughly covered.;)
How about this: we (Linux developers) provide the platform. Linux has all the amenities of a modern OS, even including desktop environments and the works. It's perfect for application development, and that's great.
So now, why don't we let Them develop their own utilities, or PAY US for what they want? Because while every user wants to do everything, an OS only has to do one thing well. This is what makes Open Source a viable business model. We don't have to do everything for free (as in beer).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're seeing things that aren't there.
Pretty amazing the /. story didn't trumpet that fact.
Nah, the editors probably didn't even read it.
That's generally true: jobs that are unionized are typically less skill-based, like logistics and assembly. But a server admin is hardly comparable to a design engineer, and I think that this defines the boundary between IT and software design. Because while an auto mechanic and an automotive engineer may both technically be "automotive" jobs, you don't see mechanics being confused with engineers. I think there should be a similar distinction between IT workers (information infrastructure maintenance) and software designers (who write the software that IT people maintain).
Uh, yeah, right. Like a 30 MB attachment can't be sent by some other means, like maybe some kind of file transfer application? It's too bad Mirabilis was bought by AOL, because then the poor Israelis forced to hide in their own homes could talk to one another and transfer files are large as they can store without having to venture outside. Oh, wait..
preview preview preview
who cares?
This is hardly a big deal. It's merely an imaginary milestone that we think is important, but is really completely relevant. Is this any kind of technical feat? No. Is this even useful? Not for the majority of people.
And besides, as a number of people have pointed out already, the title of "first 1 GB e-mail service provider" is taken.
Third, skill as a programmer depends a lot on natural talent, and there's a lot of ego involved. There are lots of really gifted individuals who would rightfully object to being grouped in with people who took a six month course at the local community college.
So don't join the union. If you think you can make it on your own, go ahead. But the way things are looking, that's becoming increasingly more difficult.
Also, in my mind, IT is very different from software development. With IT is basically system maintenance, software design is entirely different. There can obviously be a bit of both in someone's job, but either way, this isn't terrible relevant: A union's members don't have to be homogenous. An auto-worker's union, for example, supports many different people with diverse job functions that may only be indirectly related to building automobiles.
You're outlining reasons why unionization of the IT sector hasn't been widespread, but I think the main one is this: it hasn't been threatened like it is now. When it gets to either unionize or die, I think we'll see a different picture.
"But he wouldn't write aaaaaaaaaugh, he would just say it!"
"Perhaps he was dictating..."
Sounds like bullshit to me.
There is clear precedent for fair use, which include time-shifting and medium-shifting. After all, you're paying for the content, not the CD.
Hey, it's a free load test!
I can understand if Apple wants to defend their investments into UI research, since someone directly copying their GUI layouts is copying a lot of work on Apple's part. But I think the whole debate is copying nonfunctional decorative elements: like the "shiny plastic" motif which Apple seems to mesmerize its users with. I believe there was some ruling regarding just what can be considered copyrightable regarding an interface. Does anyone know what those boundaries are?
I think that a direct interface clone would be pretty clear-cut, but if it just 'looks similar,' I think that's less definite.
I wonder if there's ever been a debate over GNU copying the "look and feel" of UNIX command-based tools?
How about the "look and feel" of ls or even bash?
How ridiculous.
Ergo, if efficiency is important a command-based interface may be ideal. It may take a little while to get used to, but once you do, you'll be able to get things done much faster. Just take a look at what an experienced AutoCAD user can do with the text interface. Hunting for icons feels excruciatingly slow for someone used to the speed inherent in a text-based command system.
That said, a text-based system would not be ideal for an interface whose users have a high turn-over rate, for example. "Different strokes for different folks."
What's with this obsession with novelty? It's rather disgusting. There are stylistic differences that evolve with time and technology, obviously, but good music is good music. Music of the past doesn't lose its value because it's "old." If it did, it was never good music.
There was a vast amount of music on mp3.com and I doubt anyone's listened to it all. There's still plenty to be discovered, for everybody.
So... what's your password?
In other words, it's made of a cotton-based paper.
It's because fusion has had a bad track record in the scientific community: there have been many "snake oil" cases where devices which claimed to be based on fusion--specifically, cold fusion--were in fact complete hoaxes. That researchers are being cautious is very understandable. Notice that nobody dares mention that this is "cold" (or at least "cool") fusion.
Also, this isn't a new form of energy. It's just a novel and promising way of tapping the energy released by fusion.
But this certainly does not look like snake oil, and it HAS been replicated several times as the articles report. So I think it's time to get excited!
Oh, thanks, I didn't realize the ScienceDaily article was different.
This reminds me of this project (which has been Slashdotted before) which can be done with a home scanner. But this new Berkeley method is obviously much more advanced.
What the article doesn't mention is how useful this might be. It appears that they have devised a reliable way to trigger a fusion reaction, but is it feasible to use it for electrical generation, for example? I understand that the major problem with fusion reactor research is that they have always consumed more energy than they have produced, making them quite useless for actually generating energy. But since they are not inducing the reaction with high-powered electromagnets as has been done in the past, would this enable the possibility of a true fusion generator?
They've been outsourced to machines to leave room for more important things. Like alcohol.
do cells use nanophones?
- Your profession here.
;)
Programmer?
Linux seems to have that field pretty thoroughly covered.
How about this: we (Linux developers) provide the platform. Linux has all the amenities of a modern OS, even including desktop environments and the works. It's perfect for application development, and that's great.
So now, why don't we let Them develop their own utilities, or PAY US for what they want? Because while every user wants to do everything, an OS only has to do one thing well. This is what makes Open Source a viable business model. We don't have to do everything for free (as in beer).
Let's try to minimize the fissure between emic and etic practices, okay? I see no reason to further accentuate them.
the 2nd law of thermodynamics may be one of the least understood laws of nature...
How's that? It's a pretty simple concept. I would argue that understanding is a binary state in this case.