It's not just that they can't learn new technologies - it is that they won't. Older folk get comfortable with their favorite tools and don't feel intellectually vulnerable when using their favorite tools.
But it's not just that...
Older folk get tired of jumping on board a new technology only to see it die in six months and leave them with useless knowledge. They just don't want to spend the majority of their free time learning new technologies that either die off or later are so buggy that the industry quits using the new technology.
Why learn VB.Net when VB still works? Why even learn PHP when JavaScript works? Why not just use Perl for everything since it has worked fine since 1993? There is wisdom in staying with what has been proven, and in certain sectors such an attitude is pervasive - sectors where reliability trumps innovation.
Some day, those 29 year olds will be in their forties and be tired of jumping to new set technologies only to see them fail. Those same 29 year olds will likely stick with Java or Python no matter what the project.
I've been 29 years old for 20 years now but I still learn new languages and other technologies. I'm just not an early adopter because ii don't wasn't to spend six months learning something that will be useless in a year...
The real problem is that no matter what the situation, no matter the result, there will always be a segment of the population that is unhappy with how a cop handled the situation. There will always be some blowhard, politically left or right, that will attempt to further their own "career" by questioning police actions and thus rabble rousing.
In a perfect world, every police action on-shift would be continuously recorded and if a problem arises, it would be reviewed by internal affairs. Of course IA also needs oversight to be sure that they are not just rubber stamping police actions. However, allowing public review of police actions by releasing camera footage to the media is fraught with problems as police departments attempt to justify their own actions to the public.
It seems to me that it would be paralytic to law enforcement. On the other hand, we do need some way to know who the bad cops are and to have them removed from law enforcement.
America is supposedly the most technologically advanced country in the world and thanks to our politics other countries have and will continue to have better internet access. It seems ludicrous but I could see companies relocating to countries with better internet access with fewer restrictions and better pricing. It has happened with labor, supply chain, customer support, and other areas so how long before our government causes it to happen with Internet access?
The argument may be fallacious but I find it easier to suspend logic when discussing government policies.
Seems gays made their own mess by causing AIDS to be identified with homosexuality. It took a kid dying of AIDS (Ryan White) to get the public to realize that it wasn't just a gay disease. Some asshats had even beat the kid to death because they assumed that he had to be gay.
It is so sad that the general public can be so stupid. Simple logic says that AIDS has nothing to do with homosexuality. Consider that AIDS is a crossover virus from apes. That means that a gay disease was prevalent among apes. That means there must be a sizable gay ape population.
What about feline HIV? I don't know any gay cats, but there must be a sizable gay cat population. So is nature punishing gay animals and it took until 1980 for God to get around to punishing human homosexuality although homosexuality has existed for thousands of years.
The real problem is that Microsoft wedged its software into industrial and other non-consumer systems without apparently understanding those markets.
An industrial system, say a steel press for instance, is designed to function without the need for changing software unless new features are added. That same type of steel press may have been built forty years ago with relay controls and pushbuttons. Those relays and pushbuttons don't get upgraded - they get replaced as needed and upgraded when improvements are desired.
On the other hand using a consumer based set of software such as Windows that is intended to be upgraded every five years is an unneeded and unwanted expense with no real benefits. This supports the idea of using PLC's and Panelmates/Panelviews because their manufacturers usually provide support for at least ten years - in some cases 20 - and even provide an upgrade path at a reduced cost in many cases.
However, the real lunacy to me is when such a company provides SCADA systems that run on Windows. On the other hand, they will likely sell you an upgraded system that is equivalent when Windows XP dead next month.
I don't wasn't to be a Luddite but in some cases it may be better to just stick with or go back to relays and pushbuttons.
If I make a will, I'll leave my money to the games! They'll be taken good care of by my money as each game is given only the best filtered electricity and a nightly rubdown.
I would leave my money to my pet cat but she'd probably just waste it anyway...
Honestly - I wish there were more of these archives or at the very least that every science museum devote a section to video game technology.
The design meeting probably sounded a little like this: "who are you worried about? Why would anyone be interested in any of this anyway? They'd first have to know (insert secret here) and know where to look it up. And they'd need the right software and settings. Even if they did, what would they do with it? See, one in a million chance that all of that comes true."
Maybe you're right, it does sound like incompetence...
It's unfortunate that a major event, or political push, will need to occur before things change.
The prevailing attitude about industrial equipment, such as PLC and SCADA systems and related items seems to be that even if someone gained access, they'd have to be familiar with the software, own a copy of the software, and know what they are doing.
In other words, only an engineer could hack such a system and they would never do that; so we have nothing to worry about.
I suspect that the same attitude existed relating to the PDP 7 long ago.
Training maybe? Planning a coordinated attack? There are plenty of reasons. It is better to attack when it is advantageous than to attack when it is simply possible.
It's the same problem that existed with WOPR in the Wargames movie - connected and unmonitored phone line and backdoor password. But with SCADA systems, many companies just leave the default usernames and passwords active. With a wardialer you could find SCADA systems, but you need the same SCADA package that runs on the target to be able to communicate with it unless you really wanted to make an effort to decrypt the communications protocol.
The only thing that has stopped someone from accidentally hitting a SCADA system just like the plot in Wargames is the lack of widespread knowledge about SCADA system software packages and that even minimal SCADA packages cost more than $1000 - however, there are free demo packages available. The only thing that a person could access would be production data and maybe a few phone numbers, but they could totally control the production process and cause chaos.
Many SCADA systems also have things like VNC or PCAnywhere running on them with minimal security. I've worked on SCADA's in one country while sitting in another just using a phone connection. I've also worked on SCADA's across the Internet. This saved the company plenty of money and was quite convenient, but anyone else could have done the same thing if they had known the IP address or phone number. Of course we used passwords, but not everyone that uses remote connectivity bothers with passwords even on a SCADA system.
Until a spectacular attack actually happens, SCADA security will continue to be pathetic. I'm surprised that such an attack hasn't happened already. When the Great Lakes area/New York power failure occured, the first thing that I suspected was an attack on the power companies SCADA systems. Supposedly that isn't what happened but such an attack could yield similar if not worse results.
Since the owner is so comfortable with VB, he is likely comfortable in the possibility that any arcane bugs will be relatively easy for him to fix or identify for the team. He probably has a good idea of what to look for before the software is released. Although tests are great, they never catch everything and he probably is counting on his tribal knowledge of the program and VB as insurance. Besides, if he has trouble with a team member, he probably thinks that he can jump right in without loosing any time.
Porting a program to a new language introduces more bugs than a rewrite because some things don't port directly, though they may come close (even VB to VB.Net). There are also bugs in any language and chances are that the owner is familiar with a good percentage of the VB bugs.
Also, he may be one of those that thinks "I can do it all and have done it all" and has the attitude that he only needs people because he doesn't have the time to do it all by himself. If he is like that then nothing you do will be appreciated.
There once was a prospector wandering in the desert. He found an old boarded up mine just where he expected it to be - The Lost Dutchman mine! Millions of dollars would be his, so he busted through the barrier and inside he found gold reflecting back from the walls in the light of his lamp.
He excitedly began to dig out the gold until he felt several stabbing pains in his calves and ankles. Standing in a hoard of rattlesnakes, he lept up and began running toward the mine entrance. He made it to the entrance, collapsed with bites over his legs and slowly died from the poisons that circulated throughout his body.
Another prospector discovered the man's body only a couple of months later. He buried the dead man and proceeded slowly into the gold mine looking for what killed the man. He found the snakes, backed away cautiously, but also saw the gold. After staking his claim, returning and clearing out the dangerous snakes, and mining the gold, he became a very rich man.
First mover has advantages, but only he that proceeds cautiously will reap the benefits.
Regulation is just an encouragement by government to proceed cautiously. It isn't an evil entity intent on killing American technological advancement. It is part of the checks on industry to keep them from throwing caution to the wind in favor of the bottom dollar.
"Start developing a new technology that promises to completely revolutionise the manufacturing and supply industries as we know them, and POW! Suddenly there is activity to ban it because it might produce nasty chemicals if done in an inconsiderate manner."
So are we as a society to develop new technologies without concern for the risks and oversight of those that produce the technologies? In the early 1900's, radiation was touted as a cure and radiation drinks were available (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/bbdb0b4511b8 4010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html). It wasn't until people became harmed by it later (one man's jaw fell off) from such uses of radiation that regulations came about and limited the use of radioactive substances. Had regulation been present to limit the uses of radioactive substances to certain things prior then many lives would not have been damaged by cancers and other things.
Naturally, we are so arrogant today that we tend to think that we could never be so gullible. We should not be so irresponsible that we sacrifice safety for technology. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks or so we say - at least until we find out later that nanotechnology has dangers associated with it just like radiation, chemicals, microwaves, radar, and nearly any other technology. Unfortunately, safety often interferes with technological uses and thus it interferes with potential money streams. Get the money first and deal with the lawsuits later.
It is disturbing just how naive the public can be. There have been a number of drugs that have been released that were later found to be damaging to people - Elan's Tysabri for multiple sclerosis patients is just one example of a drug that killed people. It wasn't just greedy lawyers and people trying to make a buck that killed MS patients in the Tysabri case - it was Tysabri and Elan released it to the public and pulled it off of the market after it killed people. There have been plenty of other drugs by other companies that have harmed people in other ways which were later discovered.
Regulations do not kill an industry but they can hinder it. I would rather see a regulated industry, just like pharmaceuticals, transportation, and etc., in the US than a potentially dangerous non-regulated one. If we aren't going to take any precautions then I'd rather let another country be the laboratory. They can have the benefits or suffer the consequences. What good is being rich from a new technology if it kills you or causes debilitating diseases?
All that anyone is asking is that we proceed cautiously. No one really knows yet if nanotechnology misuses can kill us or harm us. But then the same could be said of any of the other technologies that have been developed. Benefits don't always outweigh the risks - especially if we don't even understand the risks yet.
Unfortunately, I don't think the FDA in it's current form is adequate for such a job.
"If the job sucks or I don't think I am being treated fairly, I quit, simple as that. Let your feet do the talking and get the hell out of there."
So you don't fight your own battles - you just run away. How does that help anything? Every human being gets tired of running at some point whether it's due to the children, the wife, an illness, age, or just plain getting tired of the agravation of moving. Great advice if you're in a booming market, but what happens if you have to sell a house every time you quit your job that sucks? Maybe renting for life and breaking lease agreements is a better way to go.
"Fight your own battles" is an easy rallying cry if you've never had to actually fight a battle. If you have a mortgage, you live in a down market so you don't want to have to sell, and jobs are not growing on trees then you have no choice but to fight. Unfortunately, the fight is not one on one - it is more like a street gang jumping you as you walk around a blind corner.
Company representatives usually know the laws, even create false documentation if they need to, and will do anything to protect even a bad manager. You on the other hand will need to hire an attorney and pay out of your pocket while that jackass manager that you are fighting with has unlimited company resources to help support his position.
If you've ever had a manager from hell that tormented the piss out of you to the point that you had to sue the company then you'd realize that "fight your own battles" is nothing more than empty advice. This is where a union really is nice to have.
Construction electricians are also very mobile and in fact many travel the country from job to job doing what they call "tramping" without going through the whole interviewing process for every single job they do. Here is a link to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) website jobs listing: http://www.ibew.org/members/jobs/index.asp
IT professionals could do something similar - in fact some do something similar to this already but they have to find their own jobs and go through interviews instead of just going to the union board. On the other hand, a company can call the IBEW and order the workers they need and the union just sends them the workers.
The trouble with IT is that people like to keep secrets because that is how they gain the advantage in their job. In a union, this is discouraged because everyone is to receive the same training. I doubt that a company could never call an IT union to order IT personnel and be guaranteed a minimal skill level such as can be done with electricians.
I think that it's only a matter of time before IT becomes unionized to some degree. Sections of IT are becoming more and more a skilled trade, the likelihood of it unionizing becomes greater because businesses begin to see workers as they would electricians or communications workers. More and more IT is coming from associates degree programs and tech schools which indicates that it is becoming more of a skill than a profession.
The more experienced and bachelors degree holders will suffer at first, but they will just have to move to other areas of IT or a different career. Those that come into the field when that happens and find that the big paychecks are long gone, the work is still there, and there are few benefits, will unionize.
Communications workers weren't always unionized and the training level required at the start of the industry was much different than it is now. A large sector of it is more technical or skilled trade level than engineering level. When it first started, engineering professional level was needed until it could be simplified to a technical level. This is true of any tech industry and it certainly applies to the IT industry.
I can't wait to see what some of the anti-union posters have to say when IT begins to suffer a similar fate as the communications industy.
Er, um, and in what parallel universe is the company loyal to you? Or, are employees expected to be blindly loyal and the company isn't expected to return that treatment?
Don't confuse "manager loyalty to you" with company loyalty to you. That company loyalty will only last as long as that manager is an employee. Company loyalty and employee loyalty are fantasies - doubly so when the company starts touting the "team member" line and encourages everyone to believe that they are part of management and "the team."
Impeding productivity, laziness, paying out on grievances for idiotic things, and all of those negative things are the result of the contract that "THE COMPANY AGREED TO!"
The workers decide on what the contract should be and so does the company. "The evil union" does not shove a contract down the companies throat that forces them to protect the useless. If such exists, it is negotiated by the workers and company. The trouble comes when company profits are booming and the company sells out for a terrible contract to keep the profits rolling - this is the path that got the UAW and United Steel Workers into a mess.
I've been a manager and a union member as well. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Not every union has a contract like the UAW that prevents any non-union member from infringing on the work of union members. Some union contracts actually help the company by allowing management to select the most skilled person to do a job rather than the highest senority member (a gold mine I worked for).
As a manager, a good contract makes the job much easier because everyone knows what is expected. On the other hand, an "old boy" contract like the UAW makes managing challenging to say the least.
Not all companies are good to work for. Not all companies are bad to work for. Not all unions have onerous contracts. Some companies are very successful even with unions. Some unions are even successful in "right to work" states. Some unions even assure that the workers that the company gets are skilled laborers (IBEW, CWA) not just hacks that calls themselves skilled.
Sweeping generalizations about unions exhibist a lack of experience and knowledge about them other than what is available in the news, or blindly following the "free market capitalism is good for America" line.
There are reasons that positive stories about unions are rarely aired and it isn't because they don't exist...
Having gotten that off of my mind, I think unionization could help the tech industry. Consider this, if you're an IBEW member and you're laid off then you can go to the local IBEW hall and they will help you find another job. You can go look at the job book to see what jobs are available and take the job if you want it. I have electrician friends who do this and are never out of work - they just go to the hall when their job is done and go on to the next one. No interviews, no psychological profiles test, none of that. Just go to work.
There are plenty of other benefits to such as standardized benefits, guaranteed minimum rate of pay, and guaranteed skill level. I'm sure there are more that others can think of...
"The biggest threat to Islam these days is Muslims."
If Muslims would denounce the actions of fundamentalists that commit crimes against humanity then just maybe non-Muslims wouldn't have such a negative view of Islam.
Instead, either there is silence; or there is defense of the right to take such actions. However, if Christians take such actions then it is an outrage.
When "Piss Christ" (cross in a bottle of urine) was on display in New York, was there an outcry? Of course, but Christian fundamentalists didn't burn down buildings and assault non-Christians because of this. On the other hand, a simple, offensive drawing, causes every Muslim criminal to act like an ass and Arab representatives defend this? It's a good thing no one has put a statuette of Mohammed in a piss jar or certainly there would be a total clash of civilizations.
Anyone know if Salmon Rushdie is still in hiding?
When those that represent Arab leadership are no longer afraid of standing up to the criminals that proclaim to follow the teachings of Islam, and instead condemn the actions of such criminals, then non-Muslims will begin to view Islam differently.
For me it was the Vic20 as well and I remember writing a Pong game in assembler for it. I bought the assembler cartridge - I couldn't understand how anyone could write assembler embedded in Basic for more than a line or two. Yuck!
I got tired of Basic pretty quick, but after that experience with assembler, I bought the Forth cartridge. I thought Forth was a pretty cool language at the time, but it seems it never went anywhere except maybe robotics.
What a challenge it was trying to write something fun to play in just 3.5k.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just that they can't learn new technologies - it is that they won't. Older folk get comfortable with their favorite tools and don't feel intellectually vulnerable when using their favorite tools.
But it's not just that...
Older folk get tired of jumping on board a new technology only to see it die in six months and leave them with useless knowledge. They just don't want to spend the majority of their free time learning new technologies that either die off or later are so buggy that the industry quits using the new technology.
Why learn VB.Net when VB still works? Why even learn PHP when JavaScript works? Why not just use Perl for everything since it has worked fine since 1993? There is wisdom in staying with what has been proven, and in certain sectors such an attitude is pervasive - sectors where reliability trumps innovation.
Some day, those 29 year olds will be in their forties and be tired of jumping to new set technologies only to see them fail. Those same 29 year olds will likely stick with Java or Python no matter what the project.
I've been 29 years old for 20 years now but I still learn new languages and other technologies. I'm just not an early adopter because ii don't wasn't to spend six months learning something that will be useless in a year...
The real problem is that no matter what the situation, no matter the result, there will always be a segment of the population that is unhappy with how a cop handled the situation. There will always be some blowhard, politically left or right, that will attempt to further their own "career" by questioning police actions and thus rabble rousing.
In a perfect world, every police action on-shift would be continuously recorded and if a problem arises, it would be reviewed by internal affairs. Of course IA also needs oversight to be sure that they are not just rubber stamping police actions. However, allowing public review of police actions by releasing camera footage to the media is fraught with problems as police departments attempt to justify their own actions to the public.
It seems to me that it would be paralytic to law enforcement. On the other hand, we do need some way to know who the bad cops are and to have them removed from law enforcement.
"I'm positive about the negative but a little negative about the positive." - Curly Howard
America is supposedly the most technologically advanced country in the world and thanks to our politics other countries have and will continue to have better internet access. It seems ludicrous but I could see companies relocating to countries with better internet access with fewer restrictions and better pricing. It has happened with labor, supply chain, customer support, and other areas so how long before our government causes it to happen with Internet access?
The argument may be fallacious but I find it easier to suspend logic when discussing government policies.
Seems gays made their own mess by causing AIDS to be identified with homosexuality. It took a kid dying of AIDS (Ryan White) to get the public to realize that it wasn't just a gay disease. Some asshats had even beat the kid to death because they assumed that he had to be gay.
It is so sad that the general public can be so stupid. Simple logic says that AIDS has nothing to do with homosexuality. Consider that AIDS is a crossover virus from apes. That means that a gay disease was prevalent among apes. That means there must be a sizable gay ape population.
What about feline HIV? I don't know any gay cats, but there must be a sizable gay cat population. So is nature punishing gay animals and it took until 1980 for God to get around to punishing human homosexuality although homosexuality has existed for thousands of years.
The real problem is that Microsoft wedged its software into industrial and other non-consumer systems without apparently understanding those markets.
An industrial system, say a steel press for instance, is designed to function without the need for changing software unless new features are added. That same type of steel press may have been built forty years ago with relay controls and pushbuttons. Those relays and pushbuttons don't get upgraded - they get replaced as needed and upgraded when improvements are desired.
On the other hand using a consumer based set of software such as Windows that is intended to be upgraded every five years is an unneeded and unwanted expense with no real benefits. This supports the idea of using PLC's and Panelmates/Panelviews because their manufacturers usually provide support for at least ten years - in some cases 20 - and even provide an upgrade path at a reduced cost in many cases.
However, the real lunacy to me is when such a company provides SCADA systems that run on Windows. On the other hand, they will likely sell you an upgraded system that is equivalent when Windows XP dead next month.
I don't wasn't to be a Luddite but in some cases it may be better to just stick with or go back to relays and pushbuttons.
If I make a will, I'll leave my money to the games! They'll be taken good care of by my money as each game is given only the best filtered electricity and a nightly rubdown.
I would leave my money to my pet cat but she'd probably just waste it anyway...
Honestly - I wish there were more of these archives or at the very least that every science museum devote a section to video game technology.
Nah. Arrogance and apathy.
The design meeting probably sounded a little like this: "who are you worried about? Why would anyone be interested in any of this anyway? They'd first have to know (insert secret here) and know where to look it up. And they'd need the right software and settings. Even if they did, what would they do with it? See, one in a million chance that all of that comes true."
Maybe you're right, it does sound like incompetence...
It's unfortunate that a major event, or political push, will need to occur before things change.
The prevailing attitude about industrial equipment, such as PLC and SCADA systems and related items seems to be that even if someone gained access, they'd have to be familiar with the software, own a copy of the software, and know what they are doing.
In other words, only an engineer could hack such a system and they would never do that; so we have nothing to worry about.
I suspect that the same attitude existed relating to the PDP 7 long ago.
"Maybe if the whole car was balanced on one wheel and then drove over it."
I'd rather see them pull off this stunt with the car riding on the rims...
"WHY THE HELL HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT YET?"
Training maybe? Planning a coordinated attack? There are plenty of reasons. It is better to attack when it is advantageous than to attack when it is simply possible.
It's the same problem that existed with WOPR in the Wargames movie - connected and unmonitored phone line and backdoor password. But with SCADA systems, many companies just leave the default usernames and passwords active. With a wardialer you could find SCADA systems, but you need the same SCADA package that runs on the target to be able to communicate with it unless you really wanted to make an effort to decrypt the communications protocol.
The only thing that has stopped someone from accidentally hitting a SCADA system just like the plot in Wargames is the lack of widespread knowledge about SCADA system software packages and that even minimal SCADA packages cost more than $1000 - however, there are free demo packages available. The only thing that a person could access would be production data and maybe a few phone numbers, but they could totally control the production process and cause chaos.
Many SCADA systems also have things like VNC or PCAnywhere running on them with minimal security. I've worked on SCADA's in one country while sitting in another just using a phone connection. I've also worked on SCADA's across the Internet. This saved the company plenty of money and was quite convenient, but anyone else could have done the same thing if they had known the IP address or phone number. Of course we used passwords, but not everyone that uses remote connectivity bothers with passwords even on a SCADA system.
Until a spectacular attack actually happens, SCADA security will continue to be pathetic. I'm surprised that such an attack hasn't happened already. When the Great Lakes area/New York power failure occured, the first thing that I suspected was an attack on the power companies SCADA systems. Supposedly that isn't what happened but such an attack could yield similar if not worse results.
Since the owner is so comfortable with VB, he is likely comfortable in the possibility that any arcane bugs will be relatively easy for him to fix or identify for the team. He probably has a good idea of what to look for before the software is released. Although tests are great, they never catch everything and he probably is counting on his tribal knowledge of the program and VB as insurance. Besides, if he has trouble with a team member, he probably thinks that he can jump right in without loosing any time.
Porting a program to a new language introduces more bugs than a rewrite because some things don't port directly, though they may come close (even VB to VB.Net). There are also bugs in any language and chances are that the owner is familiar with a good percentage of the VB bugs.
Also, he may be one of those that thinks "I can do it all and have done it all" and has the attitude that he only needs people because he doesn't have the time to do it all by himself. If he is like that then nothing you do will be appreciated.
"time paradoxes?"
So does this make the resultant OS precognitive multitasking?
"People would be walking by looking at you trapped..."
and possibly saying:
"Ooh look mommy, a peopletank."
"Stacy, stop tapping the glass and leave them alone. I'm not buying you one."
There's nothing like a trademark and some entity becoming asses about its' use to kill it off.
May the web continue to evolve, but for heavens sake every evolution doesn't need a new name.
Can't wait to see what Web 3.0 will be...
There once was a prospector wandering in the desert. He found an old boarded up mine just where he expected it to be - The Lost Dutchman mine! Millions of dollars would be his, so he busted through the barrier and inside he found gold reflecting back from the walls in the light of his lamp.
He excitedly began to dig out the gold until he felt several stabbing pains in his calves and ankles. Standing in a hoard of rattlesnakes, he lept up and began running toward the mine entrance. He made it to the entrance, collapsed with bites over his legs and slowly died from the poisons that circulated throughout his body.
Another prospector discovered the man's body only a couple of months later. He buried the dead man and proceeded slowly into the gold mine looking for what killed the man. He found the snakes, backed away cautiously, but also saw the gold. After staking his claim, returning and clearing out the dangerous snakes, and mining the gold, he became a very rich man.
First mover has advantages, but only he that proceeds cautiously will reap the benefits.
Regulation is just an encouragement by government to proceed cautiously. It isn't an evil entity intent on killing American technological advancement. It is part of the checks on industry to keep them from throwing caution to the wind in favor of the bottom dollar.
So are we as a society to develop new technologies without concern for the risks and oversight of those that produce the technologies? In the early 1900's, radiation was touted as a cure and radiation drinks were available (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/bbdb0b4511b8 4010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html). It wasn't until people became harmed by it later (one man's jaw fell off) from such uses of radiation that regulations came about and limited the use of radioactive substances. Had regulation been present to limit the uses of radioactive substances to certain things prior then many lives would not have been damaged by cancers and other things.
Naturally, we are so arrogant today that we tend to think that we could never be so gullible. We should not be so irresponsible that we sacrifice safety for technology. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks or so we say - at least until we find out later that nanotechnology has dangers associated with it just like radiation, chemicals, microwaves, radar, and nearly any other technology. Unfortunately, safety often interferes with technological uses and thus it interferes with potential money streams. Get the money first and deal with the lawsuits later.
It is disturbing just how naive the public can be. There have been a number of drugs that have been released that were later found to be damaging to people - Elan's Tysabri for multiple sclerosis patients is just one example of a drug that killed people. It wasn't just greedy lawyers and people trying to make a buck that killed MS patients in the Tysabri case - it was Tysabri and Elan released it to the public and pulled it off of the market after it killed people. There have been plenty of other drugs by other companies that have harmed people in other ways which were later discovered.
Regulations do not kill an industry but they can hinder it. I would rather see a regulated industry, just like pharmaceuticals, transportation, and etc., in the US than a potentially dangerous non-regulated one. If we aren't going to take any precautions then I'd rather let another country be the laboratory. They can have the benefits or suffer the consequences. What good is being rich from a new technology if it kills you or causes debilitating diseases?
All that anyone is asking is that we proceed cautiously. No one really knows yet if nanotechnology misuses can kill us or harm us. But then the same could be said of any of the other technologies that have been developed. Benefits don't always outweigh the risks - especially if we don't even understand the risks yet.
Unfortunately, I don't think the FDA in it's current form is adequate for such a job.
"If the job sucks or I don't think I am being treated fairly, I quit, simple as that. Let your feet do the talking and get the hell out of there."
So you don't fight your own battles - you just run away. How does that help anything? Every human being gets tired of running at some point whether it's due to the children, the wife, an illness, age, or just plain getting tired of the agravation of moving. Great advice if you're in a booming market, but what happens if you have to sell a house every time you quit your job that sucks? Maybe renting for life and breaking lease agreements is a better way to go.
"Fight your own battles" is an easy rallying cry if you've never had to actually fight a battle. If you have a mortgage, you live in a down market so you don't want to have to sell, and jobs are not growing on trees then you have no choice but to fight. Unfortunately, the fight is not one on one - it is more like a street gang jumping you as you walk around a blind corner.
Company representatives usually know the laws, even create false documentation if they need to, and will do anything to protect even a bad manager. You on the other hand will need to hire an attorney and pay out of your pocket while that jackass manager that you are fighting with has unlimited company resources to help support his position.
If you've ever had a manager from hell that tormented the piss out of you to the point that you had to sue the company then you'd realize that "fight your own battles" is nothing more than empty advice. This is where a union really is nice to have.
Is the company hiring programmers? I'd love to have union support. Unless the union is toothless and the contract weak, the dues are worth it.
Construction electricians are also very mobile and in fact many travel the country from job to job doing what they call "tramping" without going through the whole interviewing process for every single job they do. Here is a link to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) website jobs listing: http://www.ibew.org/members/jobs/index.asp
IT professionals could do something similar - in fact some do something similar to this already but they have to find their own jobs and go through interviews instead of just going to the union board. On the other hand, a company can call the IBEW and order the workers they need and the union just sends them the workers.
The trouble with IT is that people like to keep secrets because that is how they gain the advantage in their job. In a union, this is discouraged because everyone is to receive the same training. I doubt that a company could never call an IT union to order IT personnel and be guaranteed a minimal skill level such as can be done with electricians.
I think that it's only a matter of time before IT becomes unionized to some degree. Sections of IT are becoming more and more a skilled trade, the likelihood of it unionizing becomes greater because businesses begin to see workers as they would electricians or communications workers. More and more IT is coming from associates degree programs and tech schools which indicates that it is becoming more of a skill than a profession.
The more experienced and bachelors degree holders will suffer at first, but they will just have to move to other areas of IT or a different career. Those that come into the field when that happens and find that the big paychecks are long gone, the work is still there, and there are few benefits, will unionize.
Communications workers weren't always unionized and the training level required at the start of the industry was much different than it is now. A large sector of it is more technical or skilled trade level than engineering level. When it first started, engineering professional level was needed until it could be simplified to a technical level. This is true of any tech industry and it certainly applies to the IT industry.
I can't wait to see what some of the anti-union posters have to say when IT begins to suffer a similar fate as the communications industy.
Er, um, and in what parallel universe is the company loyal to you? Or, are employees expected to be blindly loyal and the company isn't expected to return that treatment?
Don't confuse "manager loyalty to you" with company loyalty to you. That company loyalty will only last as long as that manager is an employee. Company loyalty and employee loyalty are fantasies - doubly so when the company starts touting the "team member" line and encourages everyone to believe that they are part of management and "the team."
Impeding productivity, laziness, paying out on grievances for idiotic things, and all of those negative things are the result of the contract that "THE COMPANY AGREED TO!"
The workers decide on what the contract should be and so does the company. "The evil union" does not shove a contract down the companies throat that forces them to protect the useless. If such exists, it is negotiated by the workers and company. The trouble comes when company profits are booming and the company sells out for a terrible contract to keep the profits rolling - this is the path that got the UAW and United Steel Workers into a mess.
I've been a manager and a union member as well. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Not every union has a contract like the UAW that prevents any non-union member from infringing on the work of union members. Some union contracts actually help the company by allowing management to select the most skilled person to do a job rather than the highest senority member (a gold mine I worked for).
As a manager, a good contract makes the job much easier because everyone knows what is expected. On the other hand, an "old boy" contract like the UAW makes managing challenging to say the least.
Not all companies are good to work for. Not all companies are bad to work for. Not all unions have onerous contracts. Some companies are very successful even with unions. Some unions are even successful in "right to work" states. Some unions even assure that the workers that the company gets are skilled laborers (IBEW, CWA) not just hacks that calls themselves skilled.
Sweeping generalizations about unions exhibist a lack of experience and knowledge about them other than what is available in the news, or blindly following the "free market capitalism is good for America" line.
There are reasons that positive stories about unions are rarely aired and it isn't because they don't exist...
Having gotten that off of my mind, I think unionization could help the tech industry. Consider this, if you're an IBEW member and you're laid off then you can go to the local IBEW hall and they will help you find another job. You can go look at the job book to see what jobs are available and take the job if you want it. I have electrician friends who do this and are never out of work - they just go to the hall when their job is done and go on to the next one. No interviews, no psychological profiles test, none of that. Just go to work.
There are plenty of other benefits to such as standardized benefits, guaranteed minimum rate of pay, and guaranteed skill level. I'm sure there are more that others can think of...
"The biggest threat to Islam these days is Muslims."
If Muslims would denounce the actions of fundamentalists that commit crimes against humanity then just maybe non-Muslims wouldn't have such a negative view of Islam.
Instead, either there is silence; or there is defense of the right to take such actions. However, if Christians take such actions then it is an outrage.
When "Piss Christ" (cross in a bottle of urine) was on display in New York, was there an outcry? Of course, but Christian fundamentalists didn't burn down buildings and assault non-Christians because of this. On the other hand, a simple, offensive drawing, causes every Muslim criminal to act like an ass and Arab representatives defend this? It's a good thing no one has put a statuette of Mohammed in a piss jar or certainly there would be a total clash of civilizations.
Anyone know if Salmon Rushdie is still in hiding?
When those that represent Arab leadership are no longer afraid of standing up to the criminals that proclaim to follow the teachings of Islam, and instead condemn the actions of such criminals, then non-Muslims will begin to view Islam differently.
For me it was the Vic20 as well and I remember writing a Pong game in assembler for it. I bought the assembler cartridge - I couldn't understand how anyone could write assembler embedded in Basic for more than a line or two. Yuck!
I got tired of Basic pretty quick, but after that experience with assembler, I bought the Forth cartridge. I thought Forth was a pretty cool language at the time, but it seems it never went anywhere except maybe robotics.
What a challenge it was trying to write something fun to play in just 3.5k.