My productivity tip is to keep some index cards and tape around. Make little labels for your keyboard, and tape them in place, so you can learn the keyboard shortcuts.
Yet a "geek" who is a spectator fan of certain team sports can flaunt it. However daft he or she looks, only when things go to complete extremes (e.g. attaching more than one full sized flag to a car) does any form of unrine extraction become remotly politically correct.
It's true. Being a sports fan is an acceptable form of geekiness. That's only because playing sports is sexy -- chicks dig it -- and, it's acceptable to worship sexy men, even if you're a man who no longer plays the sport (if he ever did).
Another acceptable form of geekiness is economics. Somehow, the dismal science becomes socially acceptable once you're incorporated into a business.
There's a mystique around programming. People use software all the time, and a lot of people (but not all people) know that it's "programmers" who make it happen.
Most people don't know that programmers mainly sit there reading docs, reading code, and typing for hours at a time into a text editor. They do know, however, that it's more difficult than other tasks, because sysadmins, geeky users, managers, artists, and other people who *know* the programmers, talk about them like they're at the center of things.
Among programmers, there's the hierarchy of difficulty. Scripters look up to the people who write libraries and tools. Those folks look up to the kernel hackers.
Then, there's the magic of the actual task. It's cool to watch code come together and turn into a usable app, even if it takes days. Everyone is impressed. Even I'm impressed, and I do it for a living. It's no different than watching someone sew clothes, paint, cook, or build a house. It's the magic of making something by hand for the first time.
It's good to be a little demanding. You were too much of a doormat the first time around. (I speak from experience.) Just be your own person, take care of yourself, and if your wife does the same, all will be good.
Kids first, wife second. (Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the way it is.)
In the United States, we initially had a colonial life that was hard and there was not a great economic disparity between people.
This isn't entirely true. First off, there were slaves. That's not just an economic disparity -- it's a legal caste system of economic disparity. Second, many immigrants to the Americas were petit bourgeois, middle class people. Many of the founding fathers were of this class of farmers and merchants. Third, many of the native people here were, technically, poor, because they were in a different economic system that was largely localized, and not based around banks. In contrast, the colonial economy was globalized, and had banking. This third party should be counted, because all the land wealth of the future United States was taken by dispossessing the natives of their land.
There was considerably economic disparity, but, a wealthy plutocracy didn't exist, and the monarch was no longer a factor. So it was more equal in that respect. However, it cannot be characterized as not having a great economic disparity when there's a caste system in place.
The internet is a *great* way to find activities where you'll meet people of like mind, nearby. It's better than pretty much anything before it, except maybe high school and college clubs.
I'm not convinced internet dating is the greatest, but, meeting people through connections on the net is awesome. It's not *that* different from the calendar section newspaper, but it's just more centralized, and more open. You get on a few sites, maybe set up a few parameters, and you have easy access to all these event databases. These aren't just the big commercial events, but little "meetup" style things, or medium sized "conference" type events. So you can actually meet and hang out.
Even better, it's available to a wide range of people, because it doesn't require you to pay to read the listings, so you get a nice variety of people.
The latest thing, which I haven't done yet, is using cel phones to invite each other to socialize at the last minute. It's like an instant party machine. Everyone's competing to be social director.
I know, this stuff is obvious to a lot of you. I just think it's not obvious to everyone.
And computer geeks who are single minded about computers are *not* insane?
Please. We're just paid for our obsession.
At least computer geeks have some kind of "mystique" about them. Imagine being one of those geeks into explosives, or trainspotting, or bird watching. (All wonderful things, by the way.) Those hobbies, you *must* hide!
It depends on the outfit. There are skimpy outfits that say "I'm just frikken hot and need to air out my pits." Most guys won't ogle women looking like that. It's when the clothes are made to accentuate the boobs and ass, that men will really stare.
Nobody ever, ever wears clothes "just for themselves." Clothing is a powerful medium of communication, and almost all people wear clothes for other peoples' benefit, even if it's not done consciously. If people didn't really care, we'd all dress more or less the same, and pretty raggedly. There would be no need for "business attire" or "casual Fridays" because we'd all wear loose trousers or shorts, plain shirts, things that look like sweats, and tee shirts. We'd dress for comfort and maximum functionality.
The fact we don't all dress the same, that we have uniforms of various types, and we spend billions of dollars on clothing, haircuts, odors, and shaving, indicates that these symbolic "skins" we put on really do mean something.
I heard some managers at these companies were high on coke. LOLz.
Let's get real. Though I'm so ugly I couldn't get paid to go on a date, if I *were* attractive enough, and I felt like getting paid, I'd go out on a drinks and snacks date. Just meet someone, hang for an hour or two, and see how it goes. Then again, I'm not some hot girl who gets a lot of offers.
Women (and men) use online dating and social sites to meet people because they aren't into bars, alcohol, and cig smoke. Meeting people online is pretty cheap compared to partying all the time, too. It's also like the old "penpals" system that science fiction nerds (and lonely punk kids) used to meet each other - they had friends, but, the entire social circle was, like ten people, and it was fun meeting more people with the same interests and outlook on life.
If you have a wide social circle, and a lot of opportunities to meet people, and a lot of money and time, then there's no reason to use the online services. If you're not all these things, then, the online thing is a great option. It doesn't take much time or money, and you get to meet people with whom you have something in common, but maybe not a social network or daily schedule that's identical. Nowadays, any reasonably popular online site will connect you with people nearby, if you're in the US or some European countries. Many are strictly local, so these aren't long-distance hookups.
Also, a lot of people use these sites to meet new people and socialize, not to "date", although that goal's always there too.
I have met some cool people online who I otherwise would not have met. Also, I've met people online who know people I already know (from offline). So it's not like a weird universe of strangers out there.
That deal would be: at $1 a song, you make almost no money on the transaction, therefore, few companies without loads of venture money would be able to compete.
The small margins forces the online sellers to consolidate, until there is decent profit margin. This ultimately works out for the big companies.
The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act is administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Safety and health conditions in most private industries are regulated by OSHA or OSHA-approved state programs, which also cover public sector employers. Employers covered by the OSH Act must comply with the regulations and the safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA. Employers also have a general duty under the OSH Act to provide their employees with work and a workplace free from recognized, serious hazards. OSHA enforces the Act through workplace inspections and investigations....
Perhaps in your idealized libertarian-capitalist world of "private property", the United States ends where your property line begins, but that's not reality. The fact that a person works on private property doesn't mean that the worker's body belongs to the property owner.
If you wish to smoke in your own office, that's okay. If you and your business partner wish to smoke, that's cool too. Nobody is going to rat anyone out. If you start hiring people, then you're subject to labor laws.
Also, I think there's no question about the hazards of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. It's not any different from any other burning material. It contains soot and VOCs (plus all the chemicals the surgeon general likes to list). It's not good for your health if you're exposed to it for eight hours a day. I'm not an anti-smoking advocate in the least. I have smoked and can smoke. I've smoked everything from cigars to things that aren't tobacco. I just agree with the general idea that it's unhealthy to be exposed to smoke for long periods of time, and that workers are entitled to work in a smoke-free environment to protect their health.
If 20% of businesses in an area allow smoking indoors, and someone wishes not to be exposed to second hand smoke, then 20% of the jobs restricted to this person.
If there were any question that second-hand smoke were dangerous, there could be some debate about this, but the consensus seems to be that second-hand smoke is harmful, especially if you're exposed to it for long periods of time. It's a known hazard. Thus, it's an environmental issue, and not one of personal choices to smoke, not smoke, or to work in smoky environments.
When your choices create environmental hazards, then, they are subject to different laws and standards.
My personal right to cause harm to myself becomes restricted as it affects other people who are harmed without consent.
Suppose that cars were still very dirty, and washing them created huge chemical waste disposal problems of water flowing into storm drains. Washing your car could be considered an environmental hazard, and made illegal. You'd have to wash your car at a special car wash area. Fortunately, car washing isn't super-dirty, so we can wash cars at home. The degree of harm done to the environment determines what laws apply.
The argument given regarding second hand smoke is that the people working at these restaurants have some right to safe working conditions. Worker safety for someone exposed to smoke for 8 hours is weighed against the right of someone to smoke indoors. Nobody in this situation has total freedom.
I generally support the right of smokers to smoke wherever they wish. I personally don't mind secondhand smoke. Not much anyway. I support outdoor smoking areas, and even enclosed smoking areas. Want to light up in my car? Go ahead. However, I also support indoor smoking bans in workplaces for the above reason. I don't want to impinge on someone else's freedom to choose between jobs, and to live as healthy a life as possible wherever they are.
I love how these brainjobs always pull out the "clean air" bit, particularly when you take into account where these government intrusions were originated. LA, New York, etc...
These cities have many regulations on emissions. That their air is dirty is no secret, but, it hasn't gotten any worse in the past ten years, despite increases in population. This is due to heavy regulation. People like this regulation.
What about the people who work in said establishment? They have rights too, and the fact that they're working there gives them some rights over other peoples invasive behavior. What might be 40 minutes of smoke to you could be 8 hours of smoke to the person working there. The worker has less choice in the issue of being around that smoke. You have to balance the hazard of the smoke against the freedoms of the smokers, and the ability of each party to avoid the smoke.
Yes, there's no revenue model for Free software, aside from charging by the hour to write code to make the Free codebase useful to a client. That's how it's been since the 1980s. I'm not sure if that's "success" or failure, but, a sliver of the software development universe has subsisted off it for a while. The proof is in the pudding.
I wouldn't "invest" venture capital into Open Source to expect fantastic returns, but I'd certainly invest several hundred thousand dollars of my personal livelihood into it, as thousands of programmers already have.
"Your job as a manager for your employees, in a tight labor market, is to assign them the work to do, see they do it satisfactorily, take the blame FOR them if they fuck up, and then tell them to stop fucking up in PRIVATE. And when time comes, you fight tooth and nail to get every penny you can out of the higher ups to make sure they get the best raises they can get."
When the labor market conditions change, the job of that very same manager is to supress raises, to fire people, and to get people to stop going home when business hours end.
It's funny that management books (and pundits) think that satisfying the last two items for workers (via pep talks and group hugs) compensates for failing to provide the first three things. Someone needs to knock some sense into those gurus.
Classically, workers have had to fight tooth and nail to secure contracts that include safety and job security -- that's what the labor movement was about. Also, if the company fails to create a positive work environment, then, workers usually try to create one themselves -- usually by conspiring against the company, taking company resources for personal use, and sometimes by stealing from the company. If the workers are ambitious, they take these resources and start a competing company.
Less than 10% of the workforce (in America) is unionized, and the labor laws are being scaled back. Politicians don't pay so much attention to unions anymore, except as some kind of symbol. Unions haven't outlived their usefulness. They're dying and their usefulness is still relevant. Many times, workers aren't aware of their rights, and they don't know how to go on strike. They want to go on strike, but don't know how, and have been kicked down so many times that they're afraid.
Most people learn PHP by downloading a PHP app, installing it on their website (on a hosted server) and then eventually learn enough PHP to modify the app.
The ones who move on to doing more programming usually get the Windows verson of PHP to run on their own computer, and deploy the app to a *nix server. So, they basically don't ever have to deal with compiling PHP or even reconfiguring and restarting the server.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the 3x3 workspace tip! It works great.
My productivity tip is to keep some index cards and tape around. Make little labels for your keyboard, and tape them in place, so you can learn the keyboard shortcuts.
It's true. Being a sports fan is an acceptable form of geekiness. That's only because playing sports is sexy -- chicks dig it -- and, it's acceptable to worship sexy men, even if you're a man who no longer plays the sport (if he ever did).
Another acceptable form of geekiness is economics. Somehow, the dismal science becomes socially acceptable once you're incorporated into a business.
What does "unrine" mean?
There's a mystique around programming. People use software all the time, and a lot of people (but not all people) know that it's "programmers" who make it happen.
Most people don't know that programmers mainly sit there reading docs, reading code, and typing for hours at a time into a text editor. They do know, however, that it's more difficult than other tasks, because sysadmins, geeky users, managers, artists, and other people who *know* the programmers, talk about them like they're at the center of things.
Among programmers, there's the hierarchy of difficulty. Scripters look up to the people who write libraries and tools. Those folks look up to the kernel hackers.
Then, there's the magic of the actual task. It's cool to watch code come together and turn into a usable app, even if it takes days. Everyone is impressed. Even I'm impressed, and I do it for a living. It's no different than watching someone sew clothes, paint, cook, or build a house. It's the magic of making something by hand for the first time.
Love is blind(ing).
It's good to be a little demanding. You were too much of a doormat the first time around. (I speak from experience.) Just be your own person, take care of yourself, and if your wife does the same, all will be good.
Kids first, wife second. (Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the way it is.)
This isn't entirely true. First off, there were slaves. That's not just an economic disparity -- it's a legal caste system of economic disparity. Second, many immigrants to the Americas were petit bourgeois, middle class people. Many of the founding fathers were of this class of farmers and merchants. Third, many of the native people here were, technically, poor, because they were in a different economic system that was largely localized, and not based around banks. In contrast, the colonial economy was globalized, and had banking. This third party should be counted, because all the land wealth of the future United States was taken by dispossessing the natives of their land.
There was considerably economic disparity, but, a wealthy plutocracy didn't exist, and the monarch was no longer a factor. So it was more equal in that respect. However, it cannot be characterized as not having a great economic disparity when there's a caste system in place.
The internet is a *great* way to find activities where you'll meet people of like mind, nearby. It's better than pretty much anything before it, except maybe high school and college clubs.
I'm not convinced internet dating is the greatest, but, meeting people through connections on the net is awesome. It's not *that* different from the calendar section newspaper, but it's just more centralized, and more open. You get on a few sites, maybe set up a few parameters, and you have easy access to all these event databases. These aren't just the big commercial events, but little "meetup" style things, or medium sized "conference" type events. So you can actually meet and hang out.
Even better, it's available to a wide range of people, because it doesn't require you to pay to read the listings, so you get a nice variety of people.
The latest thing, which I haven't done yet, is using cel phones to invite each other to socialize at the last minute. It's like an instant party machine. Everyone's competing to be social director.
I know, this stuff is obvious to a lot of you. I just think it's not obvious to everyone.
Maybe try to have more interests. Pursue a range.
And computer geeks who are single minded about computers are *not* insane?
Please. We're just paid for our obsession.
At least computer geeks have some kind of "mystique" about them. Imagine being one of those geeks into explosives, or trainspotting, or bird watching. (All wonderful things, by the way.) Those hobbies, you *must* hide!
It depends on the outfit. There are skimpy outfits that say "I'm just frikken hot and need to air out my pits." Most guys won't ogle women looking like that. It's when the clothes are made to accentuate the boobs and ass, that men will really stare.
Nobody ever, ever wears clothes "just for themselves." Clothing is a powerful medium of communication, and almost all people wear clothes for other peoples' benefit, even if it's not done consciously. If people didn't really care, we'd all dress more or less the same, and pretty raggedly. There would be no need for "business attire" or "casual Fridays" because we'd all wear loose trousers or shorts, plain shirts, things that look like sweats, and tee shirts. We'd dress for comfort and maximum functionality.
The fact we don't all dress the same, that we have uniforms of various types, and we spend billions of dollars on clothing, haircuts, odors, and shaving, indicates that these symbolic "skins" we put on really do mean something.
I'd call it "user testing."
Think about it.
I heard some managers at these companies were high on coke. LOLz.
Let's get real. Though I'm so ugly I couldn't get paid to go on a date, if I *were* attractive enough, and I felt like getting paid, I'd go out on a drinks and snacks date. Just meet someone, hang for an hour or two, and see how it goes. Then again, I'm not some hot girl who gets a lot of offers.
Women (and men) use online dating and social sites to meet people because they aren't into bars, alcohol, and cig smoke. Meeting people online is pretty cheap compared to partying all the time, too. It's also like the old "penpals" system that science fiction nerds (and lonely punk kids) used to meet each other - they had friends, but, the entire social circle was, like ten people, and it was fun meeting more people with the same interests and outlook on life.
If you have a wide social circle, and a lot of opportunities to meet people, and a lot of money and time, then there's no reason to use the online services. If you're not all these things, then, the online thing is a great option. It doesn't take much time or money, and you get to meet people with whom you have something in common, but maybe not a social network or daily schedule that's identical. Nowadays, any reasonably popular online site will connect you with people nearby, if you're in the US or some European countries. Many are strictly local, so these aren't long-distance hookups.
Also, a lot of people use these sites to meet new people and socialize, not to "date", although that goal's always there too.
I have met some cool people online who I otherwise would not have met. Also, I've met people online who know people I already know (from offline). So it's not like a weird universe of strangers out there.
That deal would be: at $1 a song, you make almost no money on the transaction, therefore, few companies without loads of venture money would be able to compete.
The small margins forces the online sellers to consolidate, until there is decent profit margin. This ultimately works out for the big companies.
The workplace is not considered a strictly private place if you have employees. Here's the text from the US Department of Labor (http://www.dol.gov/opa/aboutdol/lawsprog.htm):
Perhaps in your idealized libertarian-capitalist world of "private property", the United States ends where your property line begins, but that's not reality. The fact that a person works on private property doesn't mean that the worker's body belongs to the property owner.
If you wish to smoke in your own office, that's okay. If you and your business partner wish to smoke, that's cool too. Nobody is going to rat anyone out. If you start hiring people, then you're subject to labor laws.
Also, I think there's no question about the hazards of prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke. It's not any different from any other burning material. It contains soot and VOCs (plus all the chemicals the surgeon general likes to list). It's not good for your health if you're exposed to it for eight hours a day. I'm not an anti-smoking advocate in the least. I have smoked and can smoke. I've smoked everything from cigars to things that aren't tobacco. I just agree with the general idea that it's unhealthy to be exposed to smoke for long periods of time, and that workers are entitled to work in a smoke-free environment to protect their health.
If 20% of businesses in an area allow smoking indoors, and someone wishes not to be exposed to second hand smoke, then 20% of the jobs restricted to this person.
If there were any question that second-hand smoke were dangerous, there could be some debate about this, but the consensus seems to be that second-hand smoke is harmful, especially if you're exposed to it for long periods of time. It's a known hazard. Thus, it's an environmental issue, and not one of personal choices to smoke, not smoke, or to work in smoky environments.
When your choices create environmental hazards, then, they are subject to different laws and standards.
My personal right to cause harm to myself becomes restricted as it affects other people who are harmed without consent.
Suppose that cars were still very dirty, and washing them created huge chemical waste disposal problems of water flowing into storm drains. Washing your car could be considered an environmental hazard, and made illegal. You'd have to wash your car at a special car wash area. Fortunately, car washing isn't super-dirty, so we can wash cars at home. The degree of harm done to the environment determines what laws apply.
The argument given regarding second hand smoke is that the people working at these restaurants have some right to safe working conditions. Worker safety for someone exposed to smoke for 8 hours is weighed against the right of someone to smoke indoors. Nobody in this situation has total freedom.
I generally support the right of smokers to smoke wherever they wish. I personally don't mind secondhand smoke. Not much anyway. I support outdoor smoking areas, and even enclosed smoking areas. Want to light up in my car? Go ahead. However, I also support indoor smoking bans in workplaces for the above reason. I don't want to impinge on someone else's freedom to choose between jobs, and to live as healthy a life as possible wherever they are.
In other words, there's a shortage of smart people here.... because our schools suck.
I love how these brainjobs always pull out the "clean air" bit, particularly when you take into account where these government intrusions were originated. LA, New York, etc...
These cities have many regulations on emissions. That their air is dirty is no secret, but, it hasn't gotten any worse in the past ten years, despite increases in population. This is due to heavy regulation. People like this regulation.
What about the people who work in said establishment? They have rights too, and the fact that they're working there gives them some rights over other peoples invasive behavior. What might be 40 minutes of smoke to you could be 8 hours of smoke to the person working there. The worker has less choice in the issue of being around that smoke. You have to balance the hazard of the smoke against the freedoms of the smokers, and the ability of each party to avoid the smoke.
Yes, there's no revenue model for Free software, aside from charging by the hour to write code to make the Free codebase useful to a client. That's how it's been since the 1980s. I'm not sure if that's "success" or failure, but, a sliver of the software development universe has subsisted off it for a while. The proof is in the pudding.
I wouldn't "invest" venture capital into Open Source to expect fantastic returns, but I'd certainly invest several hundred thousand dollars of my personal livelihood into it, as thousands of programmers already have.
What good is a free market if you don't know the price of the goods. All people should openly discuss their pay.
"Your job as a manager for your employees, in a tight labor market, is to assign them the work to do, see they do it satisfactorily, take the blame FOR them if they fuck up, and then tell them to stop fucking up in PRIVATE. And when time comes, you fight tooth and nail to get every penny you can out of the higher ups to make sure they get the best raises they can get."
When the labor market conditions change, the job of that very same manager is to supress raises, to fire people, and to get people to stop going home when business hours end.
It's funny that management books (and pundits) think that satisfying the last two items for workers (via pep talks and group hugs) compensates for failing to provide the first three things. Someone needs to knock some sense into those gurus. Classically, workers have had to fight tooth and nail to secure contracts that include safety and job security -- that's what the labor movement was about. Also, if the company fails to create a positive work environment, then, workers usually try to create one themselves -- usually by conspiring against the company, taking company resources for personal use, and sometimes by stealing from the company. If the workers are ambitious, they take these resources and start a competing company.
Less than 10% of the workforce (in America) is unionized, and the labor laws are being scaled back. Politicians don't pay so much attention to unions anymore, except as some kind of symbol. Unions haven't outlived their usefulness. They're dying and their usefulness is still relevant. Many times, workers aren't aware of their rights, and they don't know how to go on strike. They want to go on strike, but don't know how, and have been kicked down so many times that they're afraid.
Most people learn PHP by downloading a PHP app, installing it on their website (on a hosted server) and then eventually learn enough PHP to modify the app.
The ones who move on to doing more programming usually get the Windows verson of PHP to run on their own computer, and deploy the app to a *nix server. So, they basically don't ever have to deal with compiling PHP or even reconfiguring and restarting the server.