Re:Employers don't like them either
on
Honest Job Sites?
·
· Score: 2
I wouldn't say "it's all just a misunderstanding" though.
The problem is, even if I view a recruiter as an "agent" - they're the ones contacting *me* in most of these cases.
If they contact me, they should be pretty certain my skills are perfect for one of their employers.
In reality, they usually don't even know much about technology. (The last guy I talked with asked me if I could give him a "more detailed list" of all the types of servers I've worked with than what was on my resume. I started listing things such as "IIS server", "Apache server" when he stopped me and said, "No, I mean - servers like HP or Compaq or Dell." I said "Oh! I've worked with almost all of the different major *brands* like IBM, Compaq, etc." Then he said "Good. I see you have Citrix listed. Haven't heard of that brand before."
Several years ago, we heard this same "party line" from such software developers as Origin. They promised us a merger between PC gaming and Hollywood. We got such things as Wing Commander III. (Most people I know loved the original Wing Commander, but by its 3rd. incarnation, just got boring to play. It felt like you were just running through repetitious missions so you could view a few more minutes of the movie afterwards.)
Now, EA is telling us that "more Hollywood" is just the thing for their sports simulations?
Great... So what'll it get us this time? Games that feel just like watching the real thing on TV, complete with commercial breaks featuring real actors and actresses?
The fact is, many industries find themselves getting closer together via computer technology advances. Still, it doesn't mean the relationship equally benefits both parties. (EG. Engineering folks are rapidly becoming forced to work more and more with computers, to the point where they're learning programming languages and becoming software developers in things directly related to their field. Does this mean traditional computer developers and/or I.T. staff are becoming more of engineers than they used to be? Nope....)
I think computer programmers and I.T. have provided a number of new tools to Hollywood, and certainly, Hollywood f/x teams have been forced to become much more computer-savvy than they used to be. Does it mean game developers need to bring "Hollywood" to their table, to improve their products? I think not.
The *core* problem,as I see it, is this. Hollywood specializes in creating passive entertainment. (Sit down and watch us act for 2 hours and you'll love it.) Gaming is all about sucking people in, actively.
By deferring it to "the motherboard chipset", it seems to me AMD is leaving it more open than by putting it inside the CPU itself.
How many times did we have a CPU in the past with only 1 motherboard chipset available for it?
Even if they release their own "recommended" chipset to use with it, you can be almost sure some smaller firm in a foreign country will engineer up boards using an alternative that doesn't have TCPA in it.
You probably can't, however, disable it inside a CPU just by cutting a couple pins or whatever.
Re:they would been killed faster
on
Servers with a Smile
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't disagree with what you just said about MCSE's. Many are out there that don't stop to think. In fact, it appears that some didn't even take the exams. I was on one of the certification sites recently, where a guy was talking about people you can pay to go in and pass the exams for you. (Apparently, they have connections that work for the testing centers, so they simply fill out the forms using your SS# and info, and they memorized all the test questions and answers - since they do it for a living.)
Still, I'm not so sure "better trained I.T. staff" would solve the worm circulation problems. For starters, many people run small web servers from their home, and they're not "professionals" at all. Every copy of NT includes the IIS server, installable with a single click of a checkbox during setup. How many people thought "Hey, I'd like to host my own web site. I think I'll try that!" and became worm distributors, without ever realizing it?
Also, I've worked for companies where it's like pulling teeth to get the I.T. manager to allow you to do upgrades and patches. They're so afraid of service packs that break expensive/complex applications loaded on the servers, they refuse to patch things until months go by and they know for sure it's "safe". After all, if you have a million dollar in-house app developed using an obscure manufacturing control development package, you're much more concerned that the "security fix" might GPF the thing and stop your factory from producing product. The idea that "it keeps your system from spreading the XYZ worm" seems pretty insignificant by comparison.
Anti-choice? That's absurd! I hated school uniforms, and I hate only having limited choices on my PC.
All I'm saying is that KDE and Gnome both try to serve the same demographic. They're attempts to bring a Windows-style GUI to the X environment, while still keeping unique touches that they perceive makes them "better" than the Windows GUI.
There will *always* be plenty of other choices for X, that serve different purposes. For example, people using the LTSP project and serving X remotely to "thin client" PCs are not generally fond of KDE or Gnome because they're way too graphics-intensive and difficult to "lock down" so users can't muck up the environment.
That's why these people will still use FVWM or TWM or "BlackBox" or "ICEWm" or who knows what else. It's not like consolidating KDE and Gnome will bring about the "end of choice" for Linux and X!
From the beginning, people accused KDE and Gnome authors of bickering with each other needlessly, just due to "ego". Both people wanted to "come out on top" as the superior interface designer. The users (who are, after all, the ones that ultimately matter) just wanted something that worked well. I don't see why some people find it so "awful" of a concept, to take the best features of both and roll them together into one?
I'd certainly prefer that to taking up disk space keeping both installed, so I can go back and forth between them. I'd prefer that to the half-assed looking applicatioon menus, with sub-folders saying "KDE Applications" in Gnome, and "Gnome/GTK Apps" in KDE.
Re:Employers don't like them either
on
Honest Job Sites?
·
· Score: 2
So far, I've had very little luck getting jobs via recruiters and consulting firms.
I think I've tried working with at least 10 in the St. Louis area now, and this is what commonly happens:
They call and call, acting super-interested to meet me and get ahold of an updated (or slightly revised to suit their needs) resume, promising they have an employer that needs someone to "start immediately".
I do exactly what they ask for, and take out my time to drive to their place and visit with them in person. (Usually, we spend about 10 minutes exchanging greetings and talking a bit about things we could have just discussed over the phone, really. Then they thank me and promise to keep in touch.) After that, I hear nothing for days. After I get ahold of them, asking for an update, I get told "Sorry, but it turns out that job opening has been cancelled. The good news is, they could open it up again though - so I'll let you know if anything happens!"
After that, I basically never hear back from them again.
Sometimes it doesn't even go that far. I just hear nothing, and when I call them, they say they don't have any more information yet. (This is when they typically get that slightly annoyed tone of voice, that says "Quit calling, wasting my time. I'd have called you if something actually happened with this company.")
Am I just using the wrong people, or is this pretty often how it goes? When recruiters contact me these days, it just turns me off more than it gives me any hope....
Oh, come on now. You're trying to tell me that all the exploits and worms only came about because we didn't have "trained professionals" administering those Windows-based systems?
Nah, I'm not buying that one at all.... "Bob, the guy who knows computer stuff" is not the one developing those exploits and coding worms in his spare time.
The only reason you see increases in exploits, virii, and worms for a particular platform/OS is due to a rise in its popularity. In general, people writing destructive code do it for 2 reasons. #1 is to gain some notoriety. #2 is to do damage to a particular business (ex-employer?). In both cases, it only makes sense to aim at the platform/OS in widest use.
Sure, the news media may pick up on a virus or worm that goes around for a long time, due to people who don't do the security patches. Still, patches only come about *after* the fact, in most cases. Nobody writes 100% perfect code, and the more people have reason to try breaking a particular piece of code - the more times they'll succeed.
Actually, although it's an obvious flame to simply call Ellison "a retard" - you do have a small glimmer of a valid point in your message.
Namely, Oracle would like to see more installations of their database on stable platforms. Right now, you've got quite a few small to medium-size businesses running mission-critical Oracle databases on NT servers. Most of these installations happened because of budget limitations. (EG. We only have a few I.T. guys on staff and just paid out *big* money for Oracle. We can't afford to purchase expensive Unix servers to run this stuff on, too. Let's just recycle one of our existing NT boxes (or get a new one fairly cheap), and that way we'll be using the platform our staff is already trained on. That should keep costs to a minimum to implement this thing.)
Unfortunately, when NT blue-screens every so often, people simply think "the stupid Oracle database crashed again!" and it makes Oracle look bad.
Linux can be the more stable alternative for these people that can't/won't spend any more on their hardware or operating systems.
Whether or not you're right, I think it's way too late in the game to worry about it.
Gnome and KDE, for better or for worse, have risen to the top as the "best of breed" desktop interfaces. Now the real efforts begin on finding ways to consolidate the two into one.
When you speak of "starting over from scratch", I also assume you're talking about a whole new widget set? (If you use GTK+, isn't it going to turn out rather like Gnome, no matter what else you do?)
IMHO, *every* GUI I've seen running on top of X has a rather "slapped together" feel compared to recent versions of Windows. I think this is somewhat inherent in the design. Often-times, you're simply trying to put a windowed front-end on tradional command-line components. When you do this, things feel cobbled together. Take, for example, any X-based CD burning applications. Even the best of the bunch (like X-Roast) is still just a pretty front-end, passing command line parameters to "cdrecord".
With Win-based CD recording tools, you don't see this happening. Even companies like GoldenHawk that originally made DOS-based command line CD burning utils. did complete re-writes for native Windows versions (CDRWIN), instead of just passing parameters to their old DOS utility and calling it a Windows version.
Yeah - I think you just made a very valid point that many people forget.
Premium services are typically only purchased by the upper-class people that can ride out economic downturns, relatively unscathed. (Oh sure, they might cry in their beer about their stock values plummeting - but if they're pretty "well to do" to begin with, they likely didn't invest more in stocks than they could "afford to lose".)
The people literally living "paycheck to paycheck" aren't shopping for luxury goods. It's a "luxury" when they can afford a new (or someone's second-hand) computer in the first place.
I think where confusion comes in with Apple is their rather quiet refocusing of their target market over the years. After all, they got their start pushing their computers into schools and trying to tell everyone they were the only option worth buying, at any price, because they were easier to use. Nowdays, they've really gone to much more of a high-end, artsy customer-base. Sure, educators still buy them - but their students often don't. I know a number of PC users who never owned a Mac, but they "lust after" a Titanium Powerbook, or a G4 with the cinema display. Honestly, most of them will never actually buy one - because they don't have the cash for it, and in the "real world", it just makes better economic sense to buy upgrades for their existing P4 system, one piece at a time. But the fact they perceive a Mac as "cool to own", despite owning a high-end PC already, is rather telling.
(Personally, I don't think Palladium will ever see the light of day. It looks pretty clear that AMD won't sign on for it. That means Intel won't do so either. Otherwise, they're dumping quite a few future sales in AMD's lap. Intel is known for holding out until the last minute when negotiating big changes to their products.... I think you'll continue to see them talking about "considering Palladium" up until the last minute, but it won't really be in there.)
Therefore, I believe that assuming Palladium isn't in new Intel CPUs, Apple has no reason not to use their processors in a new line of Macs. I don't think Apple would want to try to silently switch over an existing product line to Intel chips though. Instead, they should design a whole new Mac (with another cool new case design and all), and trumpet it as the "Mac with Intel inside".
As long as they can build enough supporting hardware on their motherboard to prevent PC users from "lifting" the Intel version of OSX - they should be just fine. I don't see why any Mac user would care which chip powers their Mac, unless they're being an unreasonable zealot about the whole thing? In my scenario, everything else stays the same. You still need to buy a Mac if you want to run OSX. OSX still runs all the same software, only faster with the latest Intel CPU behind it.
Actually, it seems you've missed part of what I was trying to drive at. Of course, neither you or I can claim to have a firm grasp on all matters of international diplomacy. I don't think the U.S. government really has a better grasp on it than any of the rest of us, either.
The current "war on terrorism" is really a big, nebulous joke - if you really want to know what I think about it. My point is, when your leader goes around making vague declarations such as "this is a war on terrorism", and "the enemy is anyone who harbors terrorists", he could just as well fight his own citizens as another country.
Since the U.S. is not run by a Libertarian, but rather, a Republican - it doesn't surprise me that things played out this way. (The attempts to "clarify" our war goals by saying we're trying to find Bin Laden and other terrorist "leaders" is just an excuse. Throughout history, when nations have been at war, how often were the leaders killed? Even Hitler, in WWII, ended up killing himself. The allied forces didn't get to him first.) It's a pretty safe bet that if you've got the power to declare war, you won't be one of the people getting killed over it.
Therefore, I have to conclude that what our nation really wants is "carte blanche" to beat down anyone who "crosses our path", and a way to install fear into other nations that insist on indoctrinating their people with a "United States is evil/Satan/you name it" rhetoric.
That being said, we *are* at war now, and the terrorists that started it were trained and sent over from the Middle East. We all seem to agree that we're no good at determining exactly which Middle Eastern country someone is from, when they're over here. Fine, but then do we not have to try our best anyway? (Or do we simply say "It's not possible to do this without unfairly disrupting the lives of some innocent people." - and forget about the whole thing?)
You said yourself, the key in any fight is to "keep an eye on your enemy". This nation has agreed to fight a fairly non-specific battle against Middle Easterners holding grudges against the Western way of life. That being the case, it sounds to me like that means stopping and/or investigating all Middle Easterners choosing to reside here who aren't American citizens.
Why is a young Muslim man any more dangerous than an old woman from Nebraska? Surely you don't really need me to answer that one for you, do you? For starters, how many elderly women have *ever* hijaacked an airplane? How many have murdered people in the last 50 years, vs. young Muslim men? Has the C.I.A. had any reports of terrorist activity coming from old women in Nebraska? I suspect not.
It's interesting you mention Bank of America and their hiring practices. I've noticed that they've often listed jobs (through consulting firms) seeking individuals to assist them in upgrading the PCs at their branches to the latest software/operating system. (Right now, they claim they're moving them all to Windows 2000.)
I spoke with a guy who did this job for them a few years ago - and it was rather interesting. Apparently, they have you travel all week long. Many times, you don't get home until Saturday evening - so Sunday is really your only day off each week. (Don't stay up too late though on Sunday night, since you'll need to pack fresh clothes and be ready to hop on the plane the next morning again.)
When you get to the bank branches to do the upgrades, they don't let you start until after they close (so you're not in people's way). Fine, except the rules state someone from the branch has to stick around and lock up after you're done. Of course, these people don't want to be there - so you're constantly nagged and pressued to hurry up and get done, so they can go home.
All this for a salary of roughly $40,000/yr. (and that includes no benefits, since you're a contract worker). Doesn't sound nearly as cool as the job listings make it seem, does it?
First off, the "Slashdot history lesson" on the religious differences of Muslims and Christians is fine, but I feel rather irrelevant to my original point I was trying to make.
The fact is, throughout history, people of just about all faiths have done things in the name of their "god" or "gods" which run counter to what their religion claims they believe in. (I can't think of anything more hypocritical and ridiculous than a "Black Muslim", for example - considering the Muslims history of enslaving people.) The bottom line is, I don't really care what a group claims their religious beliefs are. I care much more about the actions they take (or don't take) against others.
People are singled out by their physical appearance all the time, and it's quite simply done because it makes some logical sense to do so.
In the U.S., people are singled out for closer inspection by police simply based on their age, or whether or not they've got long, scraggly hair. It's well-known that blacks are pulled over much more often than whites by the police. Try wearing a long trenchcoat and walking around stores in shopping centers. Will security staff keep their eyes and cameras focused on you more than the other customers?
Are any of these things really "fair" or "just"? In a perfect world, no... But it's also flying in the face of reason to claim that they have no merit. Again, the numbers don't lie. The fact is, there *are* statistically more blacks in prisons than whites, here in the U.S. They commit a larger percentage of the crimes, so police are going to scrutinize them more closely. It's a simple matter of trying to do one's job more efficiently. It's also statistical fact that people over a certain age (around age 40? I don't have exact figures in front of me.) are much less likely to commit violent crimes or thefts. Knowing this, as a security guard or police officer, you're going to pay more attention to the younger people - when trying to stop crimes.
The U.S. claims simply to be "at war with terrorism". IMHO, this means we probably should be declaring war on Israel, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other countries that generate tyrany. Who knows where it will stop, really? Hell, China is as deserving as anyone else - but we'll, of course, leave them untouched because they're not easy to beat.
The oil in the Arabic countries was only obtained in the first place using technologies created by the U.S. We, arguably, screwed up years ago when we let them take control of all the oil fields, and now they're selling it all back to us at the highest price they can get through their cartels.
I don't really care whether or not I can physically identify somone as Israeli or Palestinian. If they're over here in the U.S., in the current political climate, I think it's worth checking them out. Such is war....
Sure - but when you've lived through the hell of working dead-end jobs and wondering where you'll get the cash to pay for your next meal (all so you can keep on working towards a dream of being "famous"), you probably don't feel much like "biting the hand that feeds you" when you reach the top.
Courtney Love is in a "more comfortable" place than many artists. I'm not trying to knock her here, but let's face it. She didn't really have to earn all of her fame herself. Being married to Curt Cobain had its advantages. I'm not really sure she'd be giving the industry the proverbial finger like she does today, if she didn't have the Nirvana fame to ride the coat-tails of first.
>I'm having a hard time deciding if this is the >stupidest thing the government has done since >September 11 or just the most revolting.
In my opinion, it might well be both - except for the fact that govt. has done some real whoppers of revolting AND stupid things in the past. (Check out the papers written by military officials about nuclear testing in Utah, post WWII, for example. In one document, it was clearly written that government considered the population of Utah as "expendable" - when trying to discern environmental impact of the tests, vs. value to the nation as a whole.)
>Yea, I think I've figured it out...our >government has completely lost its mind. If we >wanted to stop terrorism at its roots, why >weren't more steps taken after the Oklahoma City >bombing (and please note how young, white, >Christian men weren't placed under scrutiny by >our government as young Muslim and Arab men >have been since September 11)?
Well, unfortunately, I think your conclusion here isn't quite on the mark. Government hasn't "lost its mind". It's always been a "group conscience", formed of a mish-mash of politicians and advisors - so it's not really possible for it to lose its mind. It never had one of its own to begin with.
Young, white, Christian men weren't scrutinized in the same way that young Muslims and Arab men are for a very sensible reason. It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with. If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time. We've got LOTS of them here in the U.S. -- much more than we've got of Muslims. People screaming about "racial profiling" seem to be neglecting the numerical facts. Why focus on a single group at all, unless it's statistically beneficial to you? In this case, focusing on Arabs is.
Seriously, I do - to a small extent. Why? Well, I've had a feeling that IRC is slowly dying off. The people just getting hooked on computers and using the Internet nowdays seem to prefer instant message clients like ICQ or AIM.
I used to spend a lot of time on EFNet, and later, Undernet - and got the impression that both were declining in actual usage. (Sure, they have tons of channels still - but many seem to just be file swapping channels with no actual discussion taking place in them.)
Just the fact that EFNet broke its own all-time usage records yesterday is interesting. I wouldn't have ever guessed it.
Hmm... yeah. I never watched a lot of DS9, actually. I got the sense that in many ways, it strayed from the philosophy traditionally guiding the Star Trek series.
For example, it seemed to negate much of the emphasis put on "people no longer needing money" that Picard liked to preach about in TNG episodes. The Ferrengi certainly seemed fixated on the concept of money and wealth....
How many 8088 processors are still running? How many 80286's? Every time I find somebody's old IBM XT or AT collecting dust in a closet, it turns out the thing still powers up/boots just fine.
The point is, the expected lifetime of a modern CPU should be plenty long enough to outlast the next couple generations of new chips. If you need more processor power and refuse to move to the newer generation of CPU, you could very well add more of the older systems to a cluster instead. By the time they all reached their "end of life" - you'd probably be at the point where things changed so dramatically, DRM was the least of your concerns.
The "nonsensical cartoon shit that makes games blow" is much of what I like about escaping reality for a bit, into a good game.
I suppose you never played any of the arcade classics either? "Pac-Man is crap! I'm supposed to believe this little yellow guy can eat that much stuff and not gain any weight? And these ghosts are chasing after him? I don't even believe in ghosts!"
Bah... The tradition of video games is alternate or suspended reality. If I want to simulate being in a real war, I'm better off playing paintball with some buddies and getting the full experience. (How realistic is it fighting a war from your computer chair, with only a mouse and keyboard to shoot your gun with?)
I find it boring and lacking in action/enjoyment, playing these Counterstrike type games where you're shot once, and then you're stuck sitting out until the whole game is over. I'd rather spend the time running and shooting make-believe stuff, instead of sitting out whenever someone hits me with an e-bullet.
Of course you're not wrong in these beliefs... But just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the fact that UT2003 has a Linux version in the box doesn't seem *that* significant to me.
Honestly, about the only mainstream games that have had Linux support have been 1st. person shooters with Quake or UT type engines. (I guess "The Sims" was a notable exception to the rule.) If they didn't release a Linux client for UT2003, I'd say that would be more of a "big step backwards" than anything else. I mean, you'd have to ask if Linux support has really backslid so far that there's not even interest in porting the latest 1st. person shooter to it anymore?
I mean, let's see here: Kingpin, Descent, Quake 1,2 and 3, Soldier of Fortune, the last version of UT, Tribes.... if all those ran as Linux clients, why is it a huge leap to think the new UT wouldn't also do so?
I played the demo for a little while, and that's exactly what I thought. All the effort in redesigning UT2003 seems to be in the enhanced physics and new character movement characteristics.
(Well, that plus improved graphics - but that's the norm for all game sequels, even the yearly refresh of the sports games.)
Basically, if you were bored sick of UT, you probably won't find much fun in UT2003 - but I think I'll be playing a lot of it. (I never really got tired of the old one. It's still my most commonly loaded/played game on my PC. There are so many custom levels and mods out there, it never really gets stale for me. That hack that changed the redeemer into a jet fighter was pure genius, for example!)
Right, that's what bothers me about Star Wars too. I don't think anyone really got that sense about it when the first couple films came out; probably because there wasn't enough storyline told for us to make those conclusions.
But in the last two Star Wars movies, I think it's become quite clear that a universe ruled by the Jedis isn't necessarily much of an improvement over the Empire. For just one example, look how the Jedis take away small children from their parents, for the good of their "war effort". Something seems really disturbing about that scene with Yoda and all those small kids in the training room.....
In Star Trek, my biggest problem with the series is how often the crew comes close to death, and escapes with some last-minute scheme that's "not certain to work". Surely, by now, they'd have all blown themselves up - just due to the law of probability. (They can't always guess right, when they've taken hundreds and hundreds of such chances and long-shots.) Other than that, it's a well-done show with surprisingly Libertarian ideals. (When you think about it, the only thing the Federation does in the way of "war" is fighting off those that refuse to "live and let live". The policy they're trying to enforce is one of "You can do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't infringe on any other civilization's rights.") They covered such difficult issues as, "Do androids have the same rights as humans and other living things?" It's not just a simple "war story".
Ok, you're painted in "naive" now, top to bottom. Like the new look?
Seriously, you'd *hope* that judges would screen out frivolous warrants out - but I don't think it happens as often as it should.
For example, one of my uncles used to serve as a Supreme Court justice in Illinois. (I believe he's in private law practice now.) He once told me that he typically just "signed-off" on warrants when they were brought to him. They're simply too busy to spend much time looking them over, and judges tend to have an attitude of "Do whatever you need to do to bring the people in here. We'll sort out what's right and wrong in the courtroom later."
Does this bother me? Yep, sure does! This is a serious flaw in the justice system. Unfortunately, I think this isn't going to be easy to change. As someone else pointed out, there's a considerable "buddy system" in place too. The lawyers know the judges who know the cops - and everyone's doing little favors for each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't say "it's all just a misunderstanding" though.
The problem is, even if I view a recruiter as an "agent" - they're the ones contacting *me* in most of these cases.
If they contact me, they should be pretty certain my skills are perfect for one of their employers.
In reality, they usually don't even know much about technology. (The last guy I talked with asked me if I could give him a "more detailed list" of all the types of servers I've worked with than what was on my resume. I started listing things such as "IIS server", "Apache server" when he stopped me and said, "No, I mean - servers like HP or Compaq or Dell." I said "Oh! I've worked with almost all of the different major *brands* like IBM, Compaq, etc." Then he said "Good. I see you have Citrix listed. Haven't heard of that brand before."
Several years ago, we heard this same "party line" from such software developers as Origin. They promised us a merger between PC gaming and Hollywood. We got such things as Wing Commander III. (Most people I know loved the original Wing Commander, but by its 3rd. incarnation, just got boring to play. It felt like you were just running through repetitious missions so you could view a few more minutes of the movie afterwards.)
Now, EA is telling us that "more Hollywood" is just the thing for their sports simulations?
Great... So what'll it get us this time? Games that feel just like watching the real thing on TV, complete with commercial breaks featuring real actors and actresses?
The fact is, many industries find themselves getting closer together via computer technology advances. Still, it doesn't mean the relationship equally benefits both parties. (EG. Engineering folks are rapidly becoming forced to work more and more with computers, to the point where they're learning programming languages and becoming software developers in things directly related to their field. Does this mean traditional computer developers and/or I.T. staff are becoming more of engineers than they used to be? Nope....)
I think computer programmers and I.T. have provided a number of new tools to Hollywood, and certainly, Hollywood f/x teams have been forced to become much more computer-savvy than they used to be. Does it mean game developers need to bring "Hollywood" to their table, to improve their products? I think not.
The *core* problem,as I see it, is this. Hollywood specializes in creating passive entertainment. (Sit down and watch us act for 2 hours and you'll love it.) Gaming is all about sucking people in, actively.
By deferring it to "the motherboard chipset", it seems to me AMD is leaving it more open than by putting it inside the CPU itself.
How many times did we have a CPU in the past with only 1 motherboard chipset available for it?
Even if they release their own "recommended" chipset to use with it, you can be almost sure some smaller firm in a foreign country will engineer up boards using an alternative that doesn't have TCPA in it.
You probably can't, however, disable it inside a CPU just by cutting a couple pins or whatever.
I don't disagree with what you just said about MCSE's. Many are out there that don't stop to think. In fact, it appears that some didn't even take the exams. I was on one of the certification sites recently, where a guy was talking about people you can pay to go in and pass the exams for you. (Apparently, they have connections that work for the testing centers, so they simply fill out the forms using your SS# and info, and they memorized all the test questions and answers - since they do it for a living.)
Still, I'm not so sure "better trained I.T. staff" would solve the worm circulation problems. For starters, many people run small web servers from their home, and they're not "professionals" at all. Every copy of NT includes the IIS server, installable with a single click of a checkbox during setup. How many people thought "Hey, I'd like to host my own web site. I think I'll try that!" and became worm distributors, without ever realizing it?
Also, I've worked for companies where it's like pulling teeth to get the I.T. manager to allow you to do upgrades and patches. They're so afraid of service packs that break expensive/complex applications loaded on the servers, they refuse to patch things until months go by and they know for sure it's "safe". After all, if you have a million dollar in-house app developed using an obscure manufacturing control development package, you're much more concerned that the "security fix" might GPF the thing and stop your factory from producing product. The idea that "it keeps your system from spreading the XYZ worm" seems pretty insignificant by comparison.
Anti-choice? That's absurd! I hated school uniforms, and I hate only having limited choices on my PC.
All I'm saying is that KDE and Gnome both try to serve the same demographic. They're attempts to bring a Windows-style GUI to the X environment, while still keeping unique touches that they perceive makes them "better" than the Windows GUI.
There will *always* be plenty of other choices for X, that serve different purposes. For example, people using the LTSP project and serving X remotely to "thin client" PCs are not generally fond of KDE or Gnome because they're way too graphics-intensive and difficult to "lock down" so users can't muck up the environment.
That's why these people will still use FVWM or TWM or "BlackBox" or "ICEWm" or who knows what else. It's not like consolidating KDE and Gnome will bring about the "end of choice" for Linux and X!
From the beginning, people accused KDE and Gnome authors of bickering with each other needlessly, just due to "ego". Both people wanted to "come out on top" as the superior interface designer. The users (who are, after all, the ones that ultimately matter) just wanted something that worked well. I don't see why some people find it so "awful" of a concept, to take the best features of both and roll them together into one?
I'd certainly prefer that to taking up disk space keeping both installed, so I can go back and forth between them. I'd prefer that to the half-assed looking applicatioon menus, with sub-folders saying "KDE Applications" in Gnome, and "Gnome/GTK Apps" in KDE.
So far, I've had very little luck getting jobs via recruiters and consulting firms.
I think I've tried working with at least 10 in the St. Louis area now, and this is what commonly happens:
They call and call, acting super-interested to meet me and get ahold of an updated (or slightly revised to suit their needs) resume, promising they have an employer that needs someone to "start immediately".
I do exactly what they ask for, and take out my time to drive to their place and visit with them in person. (Usually, we spend about 10 minutes exchanging greetings and talking a bit about things we could have just discussed over the phone, really. Then they thank me and promise to keep in touch.) After that, I hear nothing for days. After I get ahold of them, asking for an update, I get told "Sorry, but it turns out that job opening has been cancelled. The good news is, they could open it up again though - so I'll let you know if anything happens!"
After that, I basically never hear back from them again.
Sometimes it doesn't even go that far. I just hear nothing, and when I call them, they say they don't have any more information yet. (This is when they typically get that slightly annoyed tone of voice, that says "Quit calling, wasting my time. I'd have called you if something actually happened with this company.")
Am I just using the wrong people, or is this pretty often how it goes? When recruiters contact me these days, it just turns me off more than it gives me any hope....
Oh, come on now. You're trying to tell me that all the exploits and worms only came about because we didn't have "trained professionals" administering those Windows-based systems?
Nah, I'm not buying that one at all.... "Bob, the guy who knows computer stuff" is not the one developing those exploits and coding worms in his spare time.
The only reason you see increases in exploits, virii, and worms for a particular platform/OS is due to a rise in its popularity. In general, people writing destructive code do it for 2 reasons. #1 is to gain some notoriety. #2 is to do damage to a particular business (ex-employer?). In both cases, it only makes sense to aim at the platform/OS in widest use.
Sure, the news media may pick up on a virus or worm that goes around for a long time, due to people who don't do the security patches. Still, patches only come about *after* the fact, in most cases. Nobody writes 100% perfect code, and the more people have reason to try breaking a particular piece of code - the more times they'll succeed.
Actually, although it's an obvious flame to simply call Ellison "a retard" - you do have a small glimmer of a valid point in your message.
Namely, Oracle would like to see more installations of their database on stable platforms. Right now, you've got quite a few small to medium-size businesses running mission-critical Oracle databases on NT servers. Most of these installations happened because of budget limitations. (EG. We only have a few I.T. guys on staff and just paid out *big* money for Oracle. We can't afford to purchase expensive Unix servers to run this stuff on, too. Let's just recycle one of our existing NT boxes (or get a new one fairly cheap), and that way we'll be using the platform our staff is already trained on. That should keep costs to a minimum to implement this thing.)
Unfortunately, when NT blue-screens every so often, people simply think "the stupid Oracle database crashed again!" and it makes Oracle look bad.
Linux can be the more stable alternative for these people that can't/won't spend any more on their hardware or operating systems.
Whether or not you're right, I think it's way too late in the game to worry about it.
Gnome and KDE, for better or for worse, have risen to the top as the "best of breed" desktop interfaces. Now the real efforts begin on finding ways to consolidate the two into one.
When you speak of "starting over from scratch", I also assume you're talking about a whole new widget set? (If you use GTK+, isn't it going to turn out rather like Gnome, no matter what else you do?)
IMHO, *every* GUI I've seen running on top of X has a rather "slapped together" feel compared to recent versions of Windows. I think this is somewhat inherent in the design. Often-times, you're simply trying to put a windowed front-end on tradional command-line components. When you do this, things feel cobbled together. Take, for example, any X-based CD burning applications. Even the best of the bunch (like X-Roast) is still just a pretty front-end, passing command line parameters to "cdrecord".
With Win-based CD recording tools, you don't see this happening. Even companies like GoldenHawk that originally made DOS-based command line CD burning utils. did complete re-writes for native Windows versions (CDRWIN), instead of just passing parameters to their old DOS utility and calling it a Windows version.
Yeah - I think you just made a very valid point that many people forget.
Premium services are typically only purchased by the upper-class people that can ride out economic downturns, relatively unscathed. (Oh sure, they might cry in their beer about their stock values plummeting - but if they're pretty "well to do" to begin with, they likely didn't invest more in stocks than they could "afford to lose".)
The people literally living "paycheck to paycheck" aren't shopping for luxury goods. It's a "luxury" when they can afford a new (or someone's second-hand) computer in the first place.
I think where confusion comes in with Apple is their rather quiet refocusing of their target market over the years. After all, they got their start pushing their computers into schools and trying to tell everyone they were the only option worth buying, at any price, because they were easier to use. Nowdays, they've really gone to much more of a high-end, artsy customer-base. Sure, educators still buy them - but their students often don't. I know a number of PC users who never owned a Mac, but they "lust after" a Titanium Powerbook, or a G4 with the cinema display. Honestly, most of them will never actually buy one - because they don't have the cash for it, and in the "real world", it just makes better economic sense to buy upgrades for their existing P4 system, one piece at a time. But the fact they perceive a Mac as "cool to own", despite owning a high-end PC already, is rather telling.
(Personally, I don't think Palladium will ever see the light of day. It looks pretty clear that AMD won't sign on for it. That means Intel won't do so either. Otherwise, they're dumping quite a few future sales in AMD's lap. Intel is known for holding out until the last minute when negotiating big changes to their products.... I think you'll continue to see them talking about "considering Palladium" up until the last minute, but it won't really be in there.)
Therefore, I believe that assuming Palladium isn't in new Intel CPUs, Apple has no reason not to use their processors in a new line of Macs.
I don't think Apple would want to try to silently switch over an existing product line to Intel chips though. Instead, they should design a whole new Mac (with another cool new case design and all), and trumpet it as the "Mac with Intel inside".
As long as they can build enough supporting hardware on their motherboard to prevent PC users from "lifting" the Intel version of OSX - they should be just fine. I don't see why any Mac user would care which chip powers their Mac, unless they're being an unreasonable zealot about the whole thing? In my scenario, everything else stays the same. You still need to buy a Mac if you want to run OSX. OSX still runs all the same software, only faster with the latest Intel CPU behind it.
Actually, it seems you've missed part of what I was trying to drive at. Of course, neither you or I can claim to have a firm grasp on all matters of international diplomacy. I don't think the U.S. government really has a better grasp on it than any of the rest of us, either.
The current "war on terrorism" is really a big, nebulous joke - if you really want to know what I think about it. My point is, when your leader goes around making vague declarations such as "this is a war on terrorism", and "the enemy is anyone who harbors terrorists", he could just as well fight his own citizens as another country.
Since the U.S. is not run by a Libertarian, but rather, a Republican - it doesn't surprise me that things played out this way. (The attempts to "clarify" our war goals by saying we're trying to find Bin Laden and other terrorist "leaders" is just an excuse. Throughout history, when nations have been at war, how often were the leaders killed? Even Hitler, in WWII, ended up killing himself. The allied forces didn't get to him first.) It's a pretty safe bet that if you've got the power to declare war, you won't be one of the people getting killed over it.
Therefore, I have to conclude that what our nation really wants is "carte blanche" to beat down anyone who "crosses our path", and a way to install fear into other nations that insist on indoctrinating their people with a "United States is evil/Satan/you name it" rhetoric.
That being said, we *are* at war now, and the terrorists that started it were trained and sent over from the Middle East. We all seem to agree that we're no good at determining exactly which Middle Eastern country someone is from, when they're over here. Fine, but then do we not have to try our best anyway? (Or do we simply say "It's not possible to do this without unfairly disrupting the lives of some innocent people." - and forget about the whole thing?)
You said yourself, the key in any fight is to "keep an eye on your enemy". This nation has agreed to fight a fairly non-specific battle against Middle Easterners holding grudges against the Western way of life. That being the case, it sounds to me like that means stopping and/or investigating all Middle Easterners choosing to reside here who aren't American citizens.
Why is a young Muslim man any more dangerous than an old woman from Nebraska? Surely you don't really need me to answer that one for you, do you? For starters, how many elderly women have *ever* hijaacked an airplane? How many have murdered people in the last 50 years, vs. young Muslim men? Has the C.I.A. had any reports of terrorist activity coming from old women in Nebraska? I suspect not.
It's interesting you mention Bank of America and their hiring practices. I've noticed that they've often listed jobs (through consulting firms) seeking individuals to assist them in upgrading the PCs at their branches to the latest software/operating system. (Right now, they claim they're moving them all to Windows 2000.)
I spoke with a guy who did this job for them a few years ago - and it was rather interesting.
Apparently, they have you travel all week long. Many times, you don't get home until Saturday evening - so Sunday is really your only day off each week. (Don't stay up too late though on Sunday night, since you'll need to pack fresh clothes and be ready to hop on the plane the next morning again.)
When you get to the bank branches to do the upgrades, they don't let you start until after they close (so you're not in people's way). Fine, except the rules state someone from the branch has to stick around and lock up after you're done. Of course, these people don't want to be there - so you're constantly nagged and pressued to hurry up and get done, so they can go home.
All this for a salary of roughly $40,000/yr. (and that includes no benefits, since you're a contract worker). Doesn't sound nearly as cool as the job listings make it seem, does it?
Ok... (where to start? Geez....)
First off, the "Slashdot history lesson" on the religious differences of Muslims and Christians is fine, but I feel rather irrelevant to my original point I was trying to make.
The fact is, throughout history, people of just about all faiths have done things in the name of their "god" or "gods" which run counter to what their religion claims they believe in. (I can't think of anything more hypocritical and ridiculous than a "Black Muslim", for example - considering the Muslims history of enslaving people.) The bottom line is, I don't really care what a group claims their religious beliefs are. I care much more about the actions they take (or don't take) against others.
People are singled out by their physical appearance all the time, and it's quite simply done because it makes some logical sense to do so.
In the U.S., people are singled out for closer inspection by police simply based on their age, or whether or not they've got long, scraggly hair. It's well-known that blacks are pulled over much more often than whites by the police. Try wearing a long trenchcoat and walking around stores in shopping centers. Will security staff keep their eyes and cameras focused on you more than the other customers?
Are any of these things really "fair" or "just"? In a perfect world, no... But it's also flying in the face of reason to claim that they have no merit. Again, the numbers don't lie. The fact is, there *are* statistically more blacks in prisons than whites, here in the U.S. They commit a larger percentage of the crimes, so police are going to scrutinize them more closely. It's a simple matter of trying to do one's job more efficiently. It's also statistical fact that people over a certain age (around age 40? I don't have exact figures in front of me.) are much less likely to commit violent crimes or thefts. Knowing this, as a security guard or police officer, you're going to pay more attention to the younger people - when trying to stop crimes.
The U.S. claims simply to be "at war with terrorism". IMHO, this means we probably should be declaring war on Israel, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and a number of other countries that generate tyrany. Who knows where it will stop, really? Hell, China is as deserving as anyone else - but we'll, of course, leave them untouched because they're not easy to beat.
The oil in the Arabic countries was only obtained in the first place using technologies created by the U.S. We, arguably, screwed up years ago when we let them take control of all the oil fields, and now they're selling it all back to us at the highest price they can get through their cartels.
I don't really care whether or not I can physically identify somone as Israeli or Palestinian. If they're over here in the U.S., in the current political climate, I think it's worth checking them out. Such is war....
Sure - but when you've lived through the hell of working dead-end jobs and wondering where you'll get the cash to pay for your next meal (all so you can keep on working towards a dream of being "famous"), you probably don't feel much like "biting the hand that feeds you" when you reach the top.
Courtney Love is in a "more comfortable" place than many artists. I'm not trying to knock her here, but let's face it. She didn't really have to earn all of her fame herself. Being married to Curt Cobain had its advantages. I'm not really sure she'd be giving the industry the proverbial finger like she does today, if she didn't have the Nirvana fame to ride the coat-tails of first.
>I'm having a hard time deciding if this is the >stupidest thing the government has done since >September 11 or just the most revolting.
In my opinion, it might well be both - except for the fact that govt. has done some real whoppers of revolting AND stupid things in the past. (Check out the papers written by military officials about nuclear testing in Utah, post WWII, for example. In one document, it was clearly written that government considered the population of Utah as "expendable" - when trying to discern environmental impact of the tests, vs. value to the nation as a whole.)
>Yea, I think I've figured it out...our >government has completely lost its mind. If we >wanted to stop terrorism at its roots, why >weren't more steps taken after the Oklahoma City >bombing (and please note how young, white, >Christian men weren't placed under scrutiny by >our government as young Muslim and Arab men >have been since September 11)?
Well, unfortunately, I think your conclusion here isn't quite on the mark. Government hasn't "lost its mind". It's always been a "group conscience", formed of a mish-mash of politicians and advisors - so it's not really possible for it to lose its mind. It never had one of its own to begin with.
Young, white, Christian men weren't scrutinized in the same way that young Muslims and Arab men are for a very sensible reason. It's a simple fact that the Arab culture is in opposition to Western culture and values. It simply makes statistical sense to keep an eye on those who are most likely to come from the country we're at war with. If you tried preventing bombings by watching all young, white, Christian men - you'd be wasting a *lot* of time. We've got LOTS of them here in the U.S. -- much more than we've got of Muslims. People screaming about "racial profiling" seem to be neglecting the numerical facts. Why focus on a single group at all, unless it's statistically beneficial to you? In this case, focusing on Arabs is.
Seriously, I do - to a small extent.
Why? Well, I've had a feeling that IRC is slowly dying off. The people just getting hooked on computers and using the Internet nowdays seem to prefer instant message clients like ICQ or AIM.
I used to spend a lot of time on EFNet, and later, Undernet - and got the impression that both were declining in actual usage. (Sure, they have tons of channels still - but many seem to just be file swapping channels with no actual discussion taking place in them.)
Just the fact that EFNet broke its own all-time usage records yesterday is interesting. I wouldn't have ever guessed it.
You forgot "beer", the other unofficial IRC topic of choice.
Hmm... yeah. I never watched a lot of DS9, actually. I got the sense that in many ways, it strayed from the philosophy traditionally guiding the Star Trek series.
For example, it seemed to negate much of the emphasis put on "people no longer needing money" that Picard liked to preach about in TNG episodes. The Ferrengi certainly seemed fixated on the concept of money and wealth....
How many 8088 processors are still running? How many 80286's? Every time I find somebody's old IBM XT or AT collecting dust in a closet, it turns out the thing still powers up/boots just fine.
The point is, the expected lifetime of a modern CPU should be plenty long enough to outlast the next couple generations of new chips. If you need more processor power and refuse to move to the newer generation of CPU, you could very well add more of the older systems to a cluster instead. By the time they all reached their "end of life" - you'd probably be at the point where things changed so dramatically, DRM was the least of your concerns.
The "nonsensical cartoon shit that makes games blow" is much of what I like about escaping reality for a bit, into a good game.
I suppose you never played any of the arcade classics either? "Pac-Man is crap! I'm supposed to believe this little yellow guy can eat that much stuff and not gain any weight? And these ghosts are chasing after him? I don't even believe in ghosts!"
Bah... The tradition of video games is alternate or suspended reality. If I want to simulate being in a real war, I'm better off playing paintball with some buddies and getting the full experience. (How realistic is it fighting a war from your computer chair, with only a mouse and keyboard to shoot your gun with?)
I find it boring and lacking in action/enjoyment, playing these Counterstrike type games where you're shot once, and then you're stuck sitting out until the whole game is over. I'd rather spend the time running and shooting make-believe stuff, instead of sitting out whenever someone hits me with an e-bullet.
Of course you're not wrong in these beliefs... But just to play devil's advocate for a minute, the fact that UT2003 has a Linux version in the box doesn't seem *that* significant to me.
.... if all those ran as Linux clients, why is it a huge leap to think the new UT wouldn't also do so?
Honestly, about the only mainstream games that have had Linux support have been 1st. person shooters with Quake or UT type engines. (I guess "The Sims" was a notable exception to the rule.) If they didn't release a Linux client for UT2003, I'd say that would be more of a "big step backwards" than anything else. I mean, you'd have to ask if Linux support has really backslid so far that there's not even interest in porting the latest 1st. person shooter to it anymore?
I mean, let's see here: Kingpin, Descent, Quake 1,2 and 3, Soldier of Fortune, the last version of UT, Tribes
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head.
I played the demo for a little while, and that's exactly what I thought. All the effort in redesigning UT2003 seems to be in the enhanced physics and new character movement characteristics.
(Well, that plus improved graphics - but that's the norm for all game sequels, even the yearly refresh of the sports games.)
Basically, if you were bored sick of UT, you probably won't find much fun in UT2003 - but I think I'll be playing a lot of it. (I never really got tired of the old one. It's still my most commonly loaded/played game on my PC. There are so many custom levels and mods out there, it never really gets stale for me. That hack that changed the redeemer into a jet fighter was pure genius, for example!)
Right, that's what bothers me about Star Wars too. I don't think anyone really got that sense about it when the first couple films came out; probably because there wasn't enough storyline told for us to make those conclusions.
But in the last two Star Wars movies, I think it's become quite clear that a universe ruled by the Jedis isn't necessarily much of an improvement over the Empire. For just one example, look how the Jedis take away small children from their parents, for the good of their "war effort". Something seems really disturbing about that scene with Yoda and all those small kids in the training room.....
In Star Trek, my biggest problem with the series is how often the crew comes close to death, and escapes with some last-minute scheme that's "not certain to work". Surely, by now, they'd have all blown themselves up - just due to the law of probability. (They can't always guess right, when they've taken hundreds and hundreds of such chances and long-shots.) Other than that, it's a well-done show with surprisingly Libertarian ideals. (When you think about it, the only thing the Federation does in the way of "war" is fighting off those that refuse to "live and let live". The policy they're trying to enforce is one of "You can do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't infringe on any other civilization's rights.") They covered such difficult issues as, "Do androids have the same rights as humans and other living things?" It's not just a simple "war story".
Ok, you're painted in "naive" now, top to bottom. Like the new look?
Seriously, you'd *hope* that judges would screen out frivolous warrants out - but I don't think it happens as often as it should.
For example, one of my uncles used to serve as a Supreme Court justice in Illinois. (I believe he's in private law practice now.) He once told me that he typically just "signed-off" on warrants when they were brought to him. They're simply too busy to spend much time looking them over, and judges tend to have an attitude of "Do whatever you need to do to bring the people in here. We'll sort out what's right and wrong in the courtroom later."
Does this bother me? Yep, sure does! This is a serious flaw in the justice system. Unfortunately, I think this isn't going to be easy to change. As someone else pointed out, there's a considerable "buddy system" in place too. The lawyers know the judges who know the cops - and everyone's doing little favors for each other.