Um... It's a client. It's told where to go through a file in/etc/apt/sources.list -- of course, if you would have read the article, you would have known that.
So, unless someone's cracked your nameserver, you should be fine.
Of course if someone has cracked your nameserver, maybe worrying about where apt-get is pulling from is not your big problem.:)
suidperl....
COME ON! SET-UID scripting languages. Any knowledgable admin retarded enough to install or leave installed this pile of trash should deserve to get cracked.
Set your bourne shell setuid and see what happens. Then remind yourself, that perl is even more powerful than that.
The trigger finger, not the gun, please.
IL is probably the coolest thing since Java, IMHO.
*BUT*, the problem is, is that the 'write once, run anywhere' solution to the problem only exists on MS-brand products. Hardly anywhere, now is it?
Java will remain prominent simply because of this fact...
However, if MS were to write.NET runtimes for other operating systems and IL compilers for various unix-centric languages (such as perl, which *is* coming for windows), java would be so brick dead it would be rather sad and hilarious at the same time.
Simply put,.NET is another rare thing in microsoft, a great, wonderful thing, only to be limited by the short sightedness of a short man with a short man complex.
Some things that people really should consider in this argument.
First off, these guys are big VBScript fans, and most ASP is done in it. However, you can use PerlScript now, and ASP is actually a semi-useful thing when you're stuck with a NT server for one reason or another (loadable COM objects are one of these things). The fact that Netscape doesn't support VBScript (which is incapable of printing an ampersand without a chr() function call) is probably one of hte major reasons that they don't like it.
But lets be honest. Even where I work, our pages are HTML *2.0* compliant, and sometimes Netscape can barely render them properly. DHTML? Schea, right. DHTML is useful when applied properly. Menuing systems in web browsers tend to be much more 'scalable' than serving 4000 copies of an app over a network. I won't even get into the R.A.D. part of the deal (we primarily use perl in our shop, and some php).
Frankly though, if you're going to do pages with lots of flashy whizz-bangy things, use Macromedia Flash. The file format is openly documented, (which means that someone could write a full GPL plugin, someone did a while back but failed to maintain it) it runs on most platforms and browsers, and it does the job better than any DHTML/Scripting/COM kludge ever will. It's also fast, and in low quality mode, fairly resource friendly, considering that it's rendering highly compressed vector and bitmap animation in realtime.
Regardless, though, pages that are written 'just for IE' or 'Just for Netscape' are only a waste of the developers time because they're splitting their market. IE may have the windows users captivated, but, those who use every other browser on earth are still not going to view their site, or bother to remember it later.
So, if you *ARE* going to optimize for a browser, a javascript function to detect the browser type is exteremely easy to write (or you could just google for it), and will allow any user to visit your site. (if written properly, yes, it will handle non-JS browsers as well). Your CGI's can use the user-agent information to do this even easier.
Basically, anyone who's pushing for a single browser nowadays is nailing in their coffin as a future developer. The market is standardizing whether they like it or not simply because everyone and their mother is writing web browsers these days. And, considering that so many systems are using the mozilla core now, which is only stabilizing (i was rather uneasy about this until recently) just now, things are going to get more compliant as long as the mozilla team sticks to their guns.
I've noticed that Mozilla is now 'IE 5.0' compatible in it's user-agent, which is also a nice benefit. That will help everyone.
You've never had a single, solitary person say "no" to something while the rest of the group wants something else, but no-boy wins because they're in charge?
If you have a job like that, I want it too!:)
Democracy is organized anarchy, very little is actually different if you interpret it directly.
My work is about as close as i've found to what you describe, but good, well thought out ideas occasionally get the 'no way in hell' by a person who really doesn't know the situation (and even after the currently-used alternative has backfired countless times). Rarely do the people who actually do the work get to make the 'real big' decisions.
I know you didn't start this argument, but continuing down this path is just going to lead towards the same FUD-fueled arguments that have surfaced here in the past.
Ok folks -- philosophy and government 101.
Communism is regulated socialism. Ergo, 'forced', but in spirit, not by military. (Military-forced socialism is generally referred to as fascism or loosely as a dictatorship).
There is no way to regulate the GPL. Note that you do *NOT* have to submit jack squat if you don't release anything. Note also that the GPL is not an all or nothing thing, like any other software license. This negates all possibility of communism.
What people *still* don't seem to get, is that no one forces you to use GPL programs, no one forces you to modify GPL'd source. Just like any community or organization, if you are going to be a part of it, you are generally expected to contribute in one form or another, either monetary, work, whatever. You'll sign the NDA but won't use the GPL? You make me laugh.
This argument is getting *really* stale. If you guys don't like GPL, don't fucking use it. If it's that big of a deal, throw out all your GNU-based programs. Just for the love of god, stop complaining. There is no argument here that hasn't been mulled over a MILLION times on these forums, not to mention elsewhere and for 10 years previous to the inception of this site. It's just mindless bitching and moaning... I feel dirty contributing, but hopefully 2 or 3 of the 4000 people who might see this might actually get a clue.
Let me sum up the FACTS, and the ARGUMENTS, on BOTH SIDES, so those of you who are going to post it at least 200 more times in here before the hour is up can get a CLUE before you post, so at least this might be interesting.
1) GPL is viral/evil/morally wrong -- it inhibits the freedoms of the user while under the premise that it actually provides for it. Of course, I still use their code though, becuase it's really good stuff.
2) GPL is the advancement of sharing culture as a whole, or just software, and we should at least honor it's uniqueness if not pledge wholehearted fanaticism for it.
3) (works with #1) Use LGPL if you don't like GPL, or BSD. Of course, I'm just wasting time here that I could be spending programming.. wait.. I don't know how to program, but I can type 200 words per seconds thanks to my english classes, and I have a lot of free time to boot. Of course that doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of this whatsoever.
4) RMS is a commie/red/bastard/marxist/nazi/hippie/whatever. Don't listen to him, because of these reason's he couldn't possibly be correct about anything. I'm a spoiled child of the 80's who's had his brain washed by government propoganda and proof positive that the educational statistics in america being so poor are right on the money. I never read, and I never seek to educate myself on the issues. He sacrifices newborns in a MIT lab late at night. ESR is also a socialist but he's got better hygiene and costume choices.
5) Communism is socialism, Hitler was a Bolshevik (sp), and we should all embrace capitalism with the whole-hearted glory that all those rich guys with all the money and all the press time saying things like "I didn't say that in that email". America has and always been a capitalist enterprise (hah).
I would say "did I miss anything?", but of course, that would lead to 400 completely idiotic one-liners by people who actually do have an honest, sound, opinion and want to poke fun at my contempt at the lack of INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
So... "Did I miss anything?"
If you like regurgitating crap, I'm going to take a guess that there's some fetish site out there that directly accomodates your needs, so take it there.
My employer has enough confidence in me to get the job done. I collaborate with them all the time, but when it comes down to the implementation, they stay out of my way so as to not muddy up my reference implementation. Then, from there, they may modify the code.
And this is why I don't work for you. I'm confident enough in my programming skills as to not need a hand-held trip into compiler candyland. Design, however, is almost always a collaborative process, something I never even touched on since it has VERY LITTLE to do with this topic. I don't know about you, but I don't go on a 24 hour binge working on the design. I break it into 8 hour pieces.
A happy engineering director with great programmers.
They give out the code for free and just might wnat to make some cash off of what is basically netscape corp...
It's ironic how on this site it seems that every other day is a 'free software is good for business day' and the other days are 'free software is being abused by big business' days.
now there's not an answer for everything, but you find another web browser that does what mozilla does and comes with the source.
of course there isn't one, because everyone always had netscape to rely on, therefore not wanting to reinvent the wheel.
The programmers here (and some other staff) are on a policy that basically says "as long as you're doing your work, we don't care if you come in".
I'll tell you first hand - when I work at home, I get twice as much work done, I've been known to work at home for >70hrs a week. (and really, actually working:)
They're trying to abolish it (due to a new union getting it's fingers in the mix), but, it's not going to happen. If any argument, the fact taht I just stated above about my work ethic and the others' similar ethics will definately invalidate anything.
The best places that I've worked for have policies like this... Now that I'm starting to gather enough experience to where I can start having a little more impact on where I'm employed, I don't think I'll accept a job that doesn't have a policy like this.
I had a job where I was on a fixed schedule about a year ago, I eventually ended up quitting on the spot because I was tired of having to get up every morning at 6am to sit on my ass for 4 hours doing nothing (and more often than not falling asleep out of boredom). I don't have a problem with this schedule normally, but not when I'm in a chair 8 hours a day. I had no problem working hours like this when I worked at a convenience store some years ago.
I can show up at 3pm at my current job and no argument. I'm pretty sure upper management doesn't like it (mainly because they have to come in early), but they deal with it, because I bust my ass.
The other option is salary, which is great as long as it doesn't come with a "you still gotta be here from this time to that time" order.
To put it best, your programmers work best when they're comfortable. Make your thinkers comfortable and they will think more for you.
Generally, if you have good staff, your programmers are also better at managing themselves than anyone in upper management can do.
'Good' programmers have the drive to code and learn regardless of someone telling them how to do it. A good manager (like mine, and the one at my last job, which, obviously, are both programmers as well) knows that I'm going to do it my way regardless of what he says and stays the fuck out of my way.
He also knows, that he's going to get a higher quality of work out of me for doing that.
I would explain to your whomever that you are simply more productive when you are able to modify your own hours, and generally hint at a relocation in employment if he's not interested in listening.
Talk to the other employees about it, and get a petition signed. This has worked in our office, as none of us are quiet about opinions in the workplace -- this works very well with the right management.
The wrong management, IMHO, shoudln't be signing your checks. If you can't find a place that accomodates your needs, the tech world is too big now to waste away your life busting your ass for someone who really lets it know they don't give a shit about you.
I would take a 10k-20k salary hit for a better work environment, but that's just me.
I agree with you, that most people can do what you did.
Of course, it would have been interesting to see if your elderly friend would have let you and your 3 kids live in her house.
I've done close to what you've done, it's not hard, I didn't need help. It sucked, but it wasn't hard. I had to crunch, but I made ends meet. I even paid rent.
But if I had 3 mouths to feed other than my own, I would have ran right down to the welfare office - my kids aren't starving for nothing.
So let me get this straight -- 10% of your new lexus isn't worth feeding hundreds of people?
I'm not saying that you can even afford a lexus, but get my point here.
As for the 'standards', I don't recall setting any. I didn't say I had all the answers, I just said that eliminating welfare is simply ignorant.
Perhaps if you, like a lot of people in this country, wouldn't froth in the mouth at the concept of losing 1 single penny of your cash for something that might not benefit you directly, there might be some foresight in to this issue instead of simple bickering (which is what we're doing here, and the politicians in washington have been doing since the system was created).
Also, to some degree authority is needed to create a stable society. Now, I don't agree with the level that our current government thinks is enough authority, but I feel that welfare is something that does good things(tm).
It is interesting to see people complain about this, all the while our parents and grandparents suck our social security (that we are supposed to be 'investing' in) dry. After all, why should they get the money when we're supplying it to them, right? Of course when SS is dead and we're all 70, that won't matter.
At least if I'm paying into my unemployment and welfare (which, if you work minimum wage, good luck getting that unemployment), I know that if shit happens I'll have an out until I can get back on my feet.
You may not get direct returns from welfare, you may not even need it, but the possibility of being in that situation should be enough to foster faith in the system. Even at what we currently give people through welfare it's not enough to help, even with a job in some instances.
Your logic is flawed. Not all situations are as black and white as you make them seem. Does not the man who works hard and 'earns' his living have the right to give to his children to make his life better? You seem to like this at one point, and not at another.
As for the other issues....
You're right, I am not your responsibility.
But, if I've been drained of all my wealth for one reason or another and steal your car stereo to put food on my kids' table, all of the sudden I am.
Perhaps because you're from that tiny oilfield town is the reason that you percieve such things, as the cost of living is undoubtedly cheaper there than in the city. I lived in a small town as well, one with a 30% (no kidding) unemployment rate. A local giant mail order company manages to hire over 20,000 people each year for 3 months there, the total population is probably around 100K - do the math. There are simply not enough jobs there.
Sprawl is what welfare is supposed to prevent - to a degree it does this. You can sit in your nice suburban home and not have to worry about it being broken into, at least, with a relative low chance of it happening. All of 'those people' are on the other side of town, in their subsidized housing and near all the supermarkets that take food stamps.
Now, when I was younger I used to work in one of those stores, and talked ot a lot of people that came in and out, and the ones that had homes were working. They also had their handy oregon trail card (food stamps ala plastic) with them.
These people WERE working, but because they didn't have a computer growing up or parents who could pay for college, they weren't getting paid shit.
I don't know about your state, but minimum wage here is $6.50 - I remember making that, working double shifts to pay rent, etc. It's not fun. And I didn't have any children, either.
If you want real welfare reform then the minimum wage is going to have to be raised significantly. And if that happens, what you make means a lot less.
So, go ahead, remove welfare, but please, let me know ahead of time, so I can move out of the country... Darwinism as a culture is only Anarchy - I'd like to see the stock market (read: our economy) survive through that.
Must have been nice to do it without a loan. I can't recall when I've ever been able to hold onto $30k-$40k a year... Wait... did you get SCHOLARSHIPS? Now that wouldn't be charity, of course, because you traded that paper or project you wrote for the money, right? After all, your project or paper is going to be used towards something that might equate to work, right?
I doubt it. I got scholarships because I was studying a certain subject or I made a certain amount of money or I had certain grades. Does that equate to work? Not really. I didn't perform a service as trade with the givers. They gave it to me as charity, because I wanted to get an education and they had money to give for it, and I met certain criteria.
The fact is, is that in your world, where everyone looks out for themselves, is impossible. You seem to say that everyone who works makes this country successful, but there are many people in this world who don't 'work' in the conventional sense yet still provide a service to our country.
We call these people 'volunteers'. They do good things, you should talk to one or two. They enact in something called 'charity'. Welfare is a economic volunteer. It aids those in our country in times of need. Unfortunately, as with any good work, it gets abused. We see this everywhere. This is the nature of humans.
Now, if you want to get more abstract and anecdotal, by all means, do.
Which is ironic because in the end, it's the FDIC covering your ass, not the bank. But of course the bank gets to use and keep some of your money in the meantime.
NOTICE:
The vote is florida is most likely going to have a recount, at one point the difference between Bush and Gore was at slightly more than *600* votes.
Gore is not announcing his concession, and we are probably going to have to wait a day or so before the 'real' decision is made.
Note, that at this point whoever wins florida wins the election, even though oregon and I believe wisconsin still have to turn their votes in. Gore is also slated to win the popular election now, according to the recent count, although the POPULAR vote is 48% Gore, 48% Bush, 3% Nader - this is almost exactly how it looks in florida as well.
I've done both, and as far as the back only, I'd say programming, moreso because the rest of your body isn't in writhing pain as well, tends to bring more attention to it:)
You know what the greatest thing will be.. Is crashing my 'reunion' because I never graduated, and still be able to say the same thing:)
I *know* there are others out there who are plotting the same..:)
I was a band geek as well, so this only adds to the joy that i'll recieve... Anyone else who's spent a night at a football game in a marching uniform with 500 or so self-centered teeagers and their wonderfully over-approving parents know what I'm talking about. The plumes, man, the plumes!
I find it hard to believe that someone writing such a cold statement would ever consider the slightest of giving to charity.
Understand that charity is not for your well-being, but others, as it seems you have this confused.
Your relatives should be a responsibility to take care of, not 'charity'. The fact that you feel that others who didn't step on the right combination of stones or have the right parents in teh right law firm when they were born should be denied medical attention because they 'may not deserve' the entitlement is a sad reflection of our selfish society.
I would really like to know who 'doesn't deserve' some form of welfare system for unfortnate situations. I want reform of our system, I agree that welfare does give a lot of money to people who don't deserve it, but that is not a good reason to throw it away.
I find it hilarious how so many people think that so many other people 'don't deserve' things, when in reality probably at least 30-40% of them are talking about each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just curious as to why Dial-Up users even bother running daemons at all...
Um... It's a client. It's told where to go through a file in /etc/apt/sources.list -- of course, if you would have read the article, you would have known that.
:)
So, unless someone's cracked your nameserver, you should be fine.
Of course if someone has cracked your nameserver, maybe worrying about where apt-get is pulling from is not your big problem.
in debian:
apt-get update;
apt-cache search foobar
this almost *ALWAYS* finds it. you'll want to install foobar-dev to get the headers.
suidperl.... COME ON! SET-UID scripting languages. Any knowledgable admin retarded enough to install or leave installed this pile of trash should deserve to get cracked. Set your bourne shell setuid and see what happens. Then remind yourself, that perl is even more powerful than that. The trigger finger, not the gun, please.
IL is probably the coolest thing since Java, IMHO.
.NET runtimes for other operating systems and IL compilers for various unix-centric languages (such as perl, which *is* coming for windows), java would be so brick dead it would be rather sad and hilarious at the same time.
.NET is another rare thing in microsoft, a great, wonderful thing, only to be limited by the short sightedness of a short man with a short man complex.
*BUT*, the problem is, is that the 'write once, run anywhere' solution to the problem only exists on MS-brand products. Hardly anywhere, now is it?
Java will remain prominent simply because of this fact...
However, if MS were to write
Simply put,
Some things that people really should consider in this argument.
First off, these guys are big VBScript fans, and most ASP is done in it. However, you can use PerlScript now, and ASP is actually a semi-useful thing when you're stuck with a NT server for one reason or another (loadable COM objects are one of these things). The fact that Netscape doesn't support VBScript (which is incapable of printing an ampersand without a chr() function call) is probably one of hte major reasons that they don't like it.
But lets be honest. Even where I work, our pages are HTML *2.0* compliant, and sometimes Netscape can barely render them properly. DHTML? Schea, right. DHTML is useful when applied properly. Menuing systems in web browsers tend to be much more 'scalable' than serving 4000 copies of an app over a network. I won't even get into the R.A.D. part of the deal (we primarily use perl in our shop, and some php).
Frankly though, if you're going to do pages with lots of flashy whizz-bangy things, use Macromedia Flash. The file format is openly documented, (which means that someone could write a full GPL plugin, someone did a while back but failed to maintain it) it runs on most platforms and browsers, and it does the job better than any DHTML/Scripting/COM kludge ever will. It's also fast, and in low quality mode, fairly resource friendly, considering that it's rendering highly compressed vector and bitmap animation in realtime.
Regardless, though, pages that are written 'just for IE' or 'Just for Netscape' are only a waste of the developers time because they're splitting their market. IE may have the windows users captivated, but, those who use every other browser on earth are still not going to view their site, or bother to remember it later.
So, if you *ARE* going to optimize for a browser, a javascript function to detect the browser type is exteremely easy to write (or you could just google for it), and will allow any user to visit your site. (if written properly, yes, it will handle non-JS browsers as well). Your CGI's can use the user-agent information to do this even easier.
Basically, anyone who's pushing for a single browser nowadays is nailing in their coffin as a future developer. The market is standardizing whether they like it or not simply because everyone and their mother is writing web browsers these days. And, considering that so many systems are using the mozilla core now, which is only stabilizing (i was rather uneasy about this until recently) just now, things are going to get more compliant as long as the mozilla team sticks to their guns.
I've noticed that Mozilla is now 'IE 5.0' compatible in it's user-agent, which is also a nice benefit. That will help everyone.
Haha...
:)
You've never had a single, solitary person say "no" to something while the rest of the group wants something else, but no-boy wins because they're in charge?
If you have a job like that, I want it too!
Democracy is organized anarchy, very little is actually different if you interpret it directly.
My work is about as close as i've found to what you describe, but good, well thought out ideas occasionally get the 'no way in hell' by a person who really doesn't know the situation (and even after the currently-used alternative has backfired countless times). Rarely do the people who actually do the work get to make the 'real big' decisions.
thank you.
please clued-in moderators, send this guy to karma heaven.
I know you didn't start this argument, but continuing down this path is just going to lead towards the same FUD-fueled arguments that have surfaced here in the past.
Ok folks -- philosophy and government 101.
Communism is regulated socialism. Ergo, 'forced', but in spirit, not by military. (Military-forced socialism is generally referred to as fascism or loosely as a dictatorship).
There is no way to regulate the GPL. Note that you do *NOT* have to submit jack squat if you don't release anything. Note also that the GPL is not an all or nothing thing, like any other software license. This negates all possibility of communism.
What people *still* don't seem to get, is that no one forces you to use GPL programs, no one forces you to modify GPL'd source. Just like any community or organization, if you are going to be a part of it, you are generally expected to contribute in one form or another, either monetary, work, whatever. You'll sign the NDA but won't use the GPL? You make me laugh.
This argument is getting *really* stale. If you guys don't like GPL, don't fucking use it. If it's that big of a deal, throw out all your GNU-based programs. Just for the love of god, stop complaining. There is no argument here that hasn't been mulled over a MILLION times on these forums, not to mention elsewhere and for 10 years previous to the inception of this site. It's just mindless bitching and moaning... I feel dirty contributing, but hopefully 2 or 3 of the 4000 people who might see this might actually get a clue.
Let me sum up the FACTS, and the ARGUMENTS, on BOTH SIDES, so those of you who are going to post it at least 200 more times in here before the hour is up can get a CLUE before you post, so at least this might be interesting.
1) GPL is viral/evil/morally wrong -- it inhibits the freedoms of the user while under the premise that it actually provides for it. Of course, I still use their code though, becuase it's really good stuff.
2) GPL is the advancement of sharing culture as a whole, or just software, and we should at least honor it's uniqueness if not pledge wholehearted fanaticism for it.
3) (works with #1) Use LGPL if you don't like GPL, or BSD. Of course, I'm just wasting time here that I could be spending programming.. wait.. I don't know how to program, but I can type 200 words per seconds thanks to my english classes, and I have a lot of free time to boot. Of course that doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of this whatsoever.
4) RMS is a commie/red/bastard/marxist/nazi/hippie/whatever. Don't listen to him, because of these reason's he couldn't possibly be correct about anything. I'm a spoiled child of the 80's who's had his brain washed by government propoganda and proof positive that the educational statistics in america being so poor are right on the money. I never read, and I never seek to educate myself on the issues. He sacrifices newborns in a MIT lab late at night. ESR is also a socialist but he's got better hygiene and costume choices.
5) Communism is socialism, Hitler was a Bolshevik (sp), and we should all embrace capitalism with the whole-hearted glory that all those rich guys with all the money and all the press time saying things like "I didn't say that in that email". America has and always been a capitalist enterprise (hah).
I would say "did I miss anything?", but of course, that would lead to 400 completely idiotic one-liners by people who actually do have an honest, sound, opinion and want to poke fun at my contempt at the lack of INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
So... "Did I miss anything?"
If you like regurgitating crap, I'm going to take a guess that there's some fetish site out there that directly accomodates your needs, so take it there.
This is why some of us don't even BOTHER watching local news anymore.
I think you missed the point.
My employer has enough confidence in me to get the job done. I collaborate with them all the time, but when it comes down to the implementation, they stay out of my way so as to not muddy up my reference implementation. Then, from there, they may modify the code.
And this is why I don't work for you. I'm confident enough in my programming skills as to not need a hand-held trip into compiler candyland. Design, however, is almost always a collaborative process, something I never even touched on since it has VERY LITTLE to do with this topic. I don't know about you, but I don't go on a 24 hour binge working on the design. I break it into 8 hour pieces.
A happy engineering director with great programmers.
But are your programmers happy?
-Erik-
They give out the code for free and just might wnat to make some cash off of what is basically netscape corp...
It's ironic how on this site it seems that every other day is a 'free software is good for business day' and the other days are 'free software is being abused by big business' days.
now there's not an answer for everything, but you find another web browser that does what mozilla does and comes with the source.
of course there isn't one, because everyone always had netscape to rely on, therefore not wanting to reinvent the wheel.
www.fufme.com
it's already been done, hilarious shit... although, i wonder if anyone actually buys this crap.
The programmers here (and some other staff) are on a policy that basically says "as long as you're doing your work, we don't care if you come in".
:)
I'll tell you first hand - when I work at home, I get twice as much work done, I've been known to work at home for >70hrs a week. (and really, actually working
They're trying to abolish it (due to a new union getting it's fingers in the mix), but, it's not going to happen. If any argument, the fact taht I just stated above about my work ethic and the others' similar ethics will definately invalidate anything.
The best places that I've worked for have policies like this... Now that I'm starting to gather enough experience to where I can start having a little more impact on where I'm employed, I don't think I'll accept a job that doesn't have a policy like this.
I had a job where I was on a fixed schedule about a year ago, I eventually ended up quitting on the spot because I was tired of having to get up every morning at 6am to sit on my ass for 4 hours doing nothing (and more often than not falling asleep out of boredom). I don't have a problem with this schedule normally, but not when I'm in a chair 8 hours a day. I had no problem working hours like this when I worked at a convenience store some years ago.
I can show up at 3pm at my current job and no argument. I'm pretty sure upper management doesn't like it (mainly because they have to come in early), but they deal with it, because I bust my ass.
The other option is salary, which is great as long as it doesn't come with a "you still gotta be here from this time to that time" order.
To put it best, your programmers work best when they're comfortable. Make your thinkers comfortable and they will think more for you.
Generally, if you have good staff, your programmers are also better at managing themselves than anyone in upper management can do.
'Good' programmers have the drive to code and learn regardless of someone telling them how to do it. A good manager (like mine, and the one at my last job, which, obviously, are both programmers as well) knows that I'm going to do it my way regardless of what he says and stays the fuck out of my way.
He also knows, that he's going to get a higher quality of work out of me for doing that.
I would explain to your whomever that you are simply more productive when you are able to modify your own hours, and generally hint at a relocation in employment if he's not interested in listening.
Talk to the other employees about it, and get a petition signed. This has worked in our office, as none of us are quiet about opinions in the workplace -- this works very well with the right management.
The wrong management, IMHO, shoudln't be signing your checks. If you can't find a place that accomodates your needs, the tech world is too big now to waste away your life busting your ass for someone who really lets it know they don't give a shit about you.
I would take a 10k-20k salary hit for a better work environment, but that's just me.
-Erik-
I agree with you, that most people can do what you did.
Of course, it would have been interesting to see if your elderly friend would have let you and your 3 kids live in her house.
I've done close to what you've done, it's not hard, I didn't need help. It sucked, but it wasn't hard. I had to crunch, but I made ends meet. I even paid rent.
But if I had 3 mouths to feed other than my own, I would have ran right down to the welfare office - my kids aren't starving for nothing.
I bet you would too.
So let me get this straight -- 10% of your new lexus isn't worth feeding hundreds of people?
I'm not saying that you can even afford a lexus, but get my point here.
As for the 'standards', I don't recall setting any. I didn't say I had all the answers, I just said that eliminating welfare is simply ignorant.
Perhaps if you, like a lot of people in this country, wouldn't froth in the mouth at the concept of losing 1 single penny of your cash for something that might not benefit you directly, there might be some foresight in to this issue instead of simple bickering (which is what we're doing here, and the politicians in washington have been doing since the system was created).
Also, to some degree authority is needed to create a stable society. Now, I don't agree with the level that our current government thinks is enough authority, but I feel that welfare is something that does good things(tm).
It is interesting to see people complain about this, all the while our parents and grandparents suck our social security (that we are supposed to be 'investing' in) dry. After all, why should they get the money when we're supplying it to them, right? Of course when SS is dead and we're all 70, that won't matter.
At least if I'm paying into my unemployment and welfare (which, if you work minimum wage, good luck getting that unemployment), I know that if shit happens I'll have an out until I can get back on my feet.
You may not get direct returns from welfare, you may not even need it, but the possibility of being in that situation should be enough to foster faith in the system. Even at what we currently give people through welfare it's not enough to help, even with a job in some instances.
Sorry about all the long posts,
Erik
Your logic is flawed. Not all situations are as black and white as you make them seem. Does not the man who works hard and 'earns' his living have the right to give to his children to make his life better? You seem to like this at one point, and not at another.
As for the other issues....
You're right, I am not your responsibility.
But, if I've been drained of all my wealth for one reason or another and steal your car stereo to put food on my kids' table, all of the sudden I am.
Perhaps because you're from that tiny oilfield town is the reason that you percieve such things, as the cost of living is undoubtedly cheaper there than in the city. I lived in a small town as well, one with a 30% (no kidding) unemployment rate. A local giant mail order company manages to hire over 20,000 people each year for 3 months there, the total population is probably around 100K - do the math. There are simply not enough jobs there.
Sprawl is what welfare is supposed to prevent - to a degree it does this. You can sit in your nice suburban home and not have to worry about it being broken into, at least, with a relative low chance of it happening. All of 'those people' are on the other side of town, in their subsidized housing and near all the supermarkets that take food stamps.
Now, when I was younger I used to work in one of those stores, and talked ot a lot of people that came in and out, and the ones that had homes were working. They also had their handy oregon trail card (food stamps ala plastic) with them.
These people WERE working, but because they didn't have a computer growing up or parents who could pay for college, they weren't getting paid shit.
I don't know about your state, but minimum wage here is $6.50 - I remember making that, working double shifts to pay rent, etc. It's not fun. And I didn't have any children, either.
If you want real welfare reform then the minimum wage is going to have to be raised significantly. And if that happens, what you make means a lot less.
So, go ahead, remove welfare, but please, let me know ahead of time, so I can move out of the country... Darwinism as a culture is only Anarchy - I'd like to see the stock market (read: our economy) survive through that.
Must have been nice to do it without a loan. I can't recall when I've ever been able to hold onto $30k-$40k a year... Wait... did you get SCHOLARSHIPS? Now that wouldn't be charity, of course, because you traded that paper or project you wrote for the money, right? After all, your project or paper is going to be used towards something that might equate to work, right?
I doubt it. I got scholarships because I was studying a certain subject or I made a certain amount of money or I had certain grades. Does that equate to work? Not really. I didn't perform a service as trade with the givers. They gave it to me as charity, because I wanted to get an education and they had money to give for it, and I met certain criteria.
The fact is, is that in your world, where everyone looks out for themselves, is impossible. You seem to say that everyone who works makes this country successful, but there are many people in this world who don't 'work' in the conventional sense yet still provide a service to our country.
We call these people 'volunteers'. They do good things, you should talk to one or two. They enact in something called 'charity'. Welfare is a economic volunteer. It aids those in our country in times of need. Unfortunately, as with any good work, it gets abused. We see this everywhere. This is the nature of humans.
Now, if you want to get more abstract and anecdotal, by all means, do.
Which is ironic because in the end, it's the FDIC covering your ass, not the bank. But of course the bank gets to use and keep some of your money in the meantime.
NOTICE: The vote is florida is most likely going to have a recount, at one point the difference between Bush and Gore was at slightly more than *600* votes. Gore is not announcing his concession, and we are probably going to have to wait a day or so before the 'real' decision is made. Note, that at this point whoever wins florida wins the election, even though oregon and I believe wisconsin still have to turn their votes in. Gore is also slated to win the popular election now, according to the recent count, although the POPULAR vote is 48% Gore, 48% Bush, 3% Nader - this is almost exactly how it looks in florida as well.
Open your encylopedia up to 'discussion' the next time and read that.
If you want everyone to get along, watch TV or make your comments on a ZD* site, where they're filterered.
Let us have our arguments in peace. Thanks.
And I prefer both. bitform is a better reference (like someone else said), and paper works better from front to back (I can take it on the train).
in a defrag program.
please.
I've done both, and as far as the back only, I'd say programming, moreso because the rest of your body isn't in writhing pain as well, tends to bring more attention to it :)
You know what the greatest thing will be.. Is crashing my 'reunion' because I never graduated, and still be able to say the same thing :)
:)
I *know* there are others out there who are plotting the same..
I was a band geek as well, so this only adds to the joy that i'll recieve... Anyone else who's spent a night at a football game in a marching uniform with 500 or so self-centered teeagers and their wonderfully over-approving parents know what I'm talking about. The plumes, man, the plumes!
If you live in a small town, the last 2 are the same group of people. :)
I find it hard to believe that someone writing such a cold statement would ever consider the slightest of giving to charity.
Understand that charity is not for your well-being, but others, as it seems you have this confused.
Your relatives should be a responsibility to take care of, not 'charity'. The fact that you feel that others who didn't step on the right combination of stones or have the right parents in teh right law firm when they were born should be denied medical attention because they 'may not deserve' the entitlement is a sad reflection of our selfish society.
I would really like to know who 'doesn't deserve' some form of welfare system for unfortnate situations. I want reform of our system, I agree that welfare does give a lot of money to people who don't deserve it, but that is not a good reason to throw it away.
I find it hilarious how so many people think that so many other people 'don't deserve' things, when in reality probably at least 30-40% of them are talking about each other.