BTW, this "special snowflake" insult that has recently started to appear here, is that some teenager-thing? Because I do not get it at all and it does not even seem to make any sense how it is used. Or is there some new cult-of-stupidity that invented this?
Wow, talk about somebody that has no clue what is going on. You should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect sometime.
Incidentally, if you think _I_ need to provide evidence in order to convince _you_, then your are fucked in the head. I could not care less about you staying clueless. What I do is point out a chain of reasoning for people that have seen the signs but may not yet have connected the dots or have different conclusions, which in turn could give me new ideas. But people that are oblivious to the facts (like you) are completely irrelevant to me.
Or, alternatively, you can provide much better value than the young and inexperienced. Then you can ask for a significantly higher salary and more time off.
If you stopped learning at 25, that will not be an option though.
That is really what it boils down to. If you get better, than when you reach an age where the general stupidity about "youth" being an advantage does not serve to cover incompetence anymore, you will not be incompetent. Not-incompetent IT personnel is in short supply and the "wizards" are universally treasured. Very few are young though, IT is just far too hard to get good at.
If, on the other hand, getting older just makes you more grumpy and you remain just as inexperienced and incompetent as you were as a young person (and we all start understanding pretty little, that is just how it works), then you will just get more expensive and even less useful with age. Unfortunately, the second class of older IT workers is the majority and they are a pain. I have even run into ones that sabotage things in ways that are hard to pin on them in order to make others look bad and I have encountered quite a few of the utter scum where anything broken is always the other's fault, never theirs, regardless of of how bad they have screwed up.
These are also the people that tell you "cannot be done" about a lot of things, when they really just mean "I do not want to do it". The best I had so far was a senior web-server administrator that told me that there was no way to increase logging level in Apache. Fortunately there were others in this call and a simple "adjust the value of LogLevel" made him come back a few minutes later with "ah, yes, that seems to be possible". (By now I ride over these people mercilessly, privilege of being an expensive tech-consultant.) Why this guy was not fired quite a while ago is beyond me. I have run into this numerous times before and almost always with older IT people, because the younger ones still have some appreciation of their limitations.
Bottom line: Do not bet that guy that drags everyone down, advises against all changes, screws up and blames others, etc. Be the guy (or gal) that has rational and good arguments when advising against changes (which is often necessary, many "new" things are just bad), has a high level of skill, insight and experience, is helpful, and admits that yes, you make mistakes as well, and you do not have any problem with "ageism".
There are, but that is a special case unless you use a very broad definition of "mentally ill". For the purpose here, you would have to include things like regular narcissism.
DR test are expensive and may show the DR site does not work, making them even more expensive. The bonus for upper management is obviously far more important.
Indeed. You can _not_ kill a properly set-up architecture with one switch or one action. You cannot even kill it from one site (unless you are the admin and are doing it deliberately).
This is dishonest, incompetent and greedy management fighting for survival with every lie they can find. The fault is >99% with them.
Simple. Use the redundant site for that and make sure the primary is stable before. This is not rocket-science. Competent IT organizations with competent CEOs do this regularly.
Sure, that may have been the proverbial last drop. But the actual root-cause is that their systems were not able to cope with outages that must be expected. And the responsibility for that is straight with top management. Their utterly dishonest smoke-screen is just more proof that they should be removed immediately for gross incompetence.
Just my thought. Unfortunately, the truth is often not easy to find here. That makes it easier for the scum that makes false claims and far, far harder for the real victims that already have to struggle with what was done to them. Apparently, there are countries in Europe where the police does not follow-up on more than half of the rape complaints because they have absolutely no credibility. It seems to be quite common in child custody cases as well and the criminals (yes, criminals) that make these false claims usually get away with it without being punished because the police just does not investigate obviously bogus claims, apparently to not make it even harder for real victims. While I can understand that, this encourages false claims even more.
Personally, I think making a false claim of rape is about on the same moral level as raping somebody. I think that if proven beyond a doubt, people doing this should go away for the same time that a rapist does.
Indeed. Whenever some people are really discriminated against, you find others that are just trying to get a free ride on this. Pretty bad. The worst case is women claiming to have been raped, when nothing like that happened. It is just far too easy to do and apparently many cannot resist.
That is the point: "mostly limited to". That is a statement about use, not about what _can_ be done with it. Also, fact of the matter is that it is extremely expensive to kill people with a real vaccine and you need some specific illness that is actually beneficial and saves their life. There are examples for that, but due to the price-tag and the difficulties to achieve the outcome I do not think that has been done.
That is bullshit. Even with a legal guardian, all rights that you can competently use yourself are yours. And that guardian must legally only use the rights assigned to them in your interest. Now, the mother here wanted to find out whether she committed suicide. That is not in the interest of the daughter, but in the mother's and hence she cannot do that, because it would be a misuse of her role as guardian.
But as far as I understand (after reading up a bit more on the case) the issue here was that the mother wanted access to private communication and that she cannot get because that would violate the right to communication privacy of the others involved in that communication. Yes, that also means parents cannot legally read their children's mail or email. Another reason to make sure your kids trust you.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, this "special snowflake" insult that has recently started to appear here, is that some teenager-thing? Because I do not get it at all and it does not even seem to make any sense how it is used. Or is there some new cult-of-stupidity that invented this?
You must be new here...
You can try that. I recommend looking for an alternate career early on though if you do.
Wow, talk about somebody that has no clue what is going on. You should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect sometime.
Incidentally, if you think _I_ need to provide evidence in order to convince _you_, then your are fucked in the head. I could not care less about you staying clueless. What I do is point out a chain of reasoning for people that have seen the signs but may not yet have connected the dots or have different conclusions, which in turn could give me new ideas. But people that are oblivious to the facts (like you) are completely irrelevant to me.
Is this an example of the "hate speech" I have heard so much about? Not impressive, more on the pathetic side.
It is neither. The idea is plain obvious. Anybody competent (no, that does not include the average "programmer") can implement this in a few weeks.
Or, alternatively, you can provide much better value than the young and inexperienced. Then you can ask for a significantly higher salary and more time off.
If you stopped learning at 25, that will not be an option though.
That is really what it boils down to. If you get better, than when you reach an age where the general stupidity about "youth" being an advantage does not serve to cover incompetence anymore, you will not be incompetent. Not-incompetent IT personnel is in short supply and the "wizards" are universally treasured. Very few are young though, IT is just far too hard to get good at.
If, on the other hand, getting older just makes you more grumpy and you remain just as inexperienced and incompetent as you were as a young person (and we all start understanding pretty little, that is just how it works), then you will just get more expensive and even less useful with age. Unfortunately, the second class of older IT workers is the majority and they are a pain. I have even run into ones that sabotage things in ways that are hard to pin on them in order to make others look bad and I have encountered quite a few of the utter scum where anything broken is always the other's fault, never theirs, regardless of of how bad they have screwed up.
These are also the people that tell you "cannot be done" about a lot of things, when they really just mean "I do not want to do it". The best I had so far was a senior web-server administrator that told me that there was no way to increase logging level in Apache. Fortunately there were others in this call and a simple "adjust the value of LogLevel" made him come back a few minutes later with "ah, yes, that seems to be possible". (By now I ride over these people mercilessly, privilege of being an expensive tech-consultant.) Why this guy was not fired quite a while ago is beyond me. I have run into this numerous times before and almost always with older IT people, because the younger ones still have some appreciation of their limitations.
Bottom line: Do not bet that guy that drags everyone down, advises against all changes, screws up and blames others, etc.
Be the guy (or gal) that has rational and good arguments when advising against changes (which is often necessary, many "new" things are just bad), has a high level of skill, insight and experience, is helpful, and admits that yes, you make mistakes as well, and you do not have any problem with "ageism".
It's the second group that completely screws over the first by making people take them less seriously.
Indeed. And that makes the false claims far worse than many other crimes.
There are, but that is a special case unless you use a very broad definition of "mentally ill". For the purpose here, you would have to include things like regular narcissism.
He will not have to. An outage of this magnitude from a single cause like this can only happen if gross negligence was rampart on the other side.
DR test are expensive and may show the DR site does not work, making them even more expensive. The bonus for upper management is obviously far more important.
Indeed. You can _not_ kill a properly set-up architecture with one switch or one action. You cannot even kill it from one site (unless you are the admin and are doing it deliberately).
This is dishonest, incompetent and greedy management fighting for survival with every lie they can find. The fault is >99% with them.
Simple. Use the redundant site for that and make sure the primary is stable before. This is not rocket-science. Competent IT organizations with competent CEOs do this regularly.
Sure, that may have been the proverbial last drop. But the actual root-cause is that their systems were not able to cope with outages that must be expected. And the responsibility for that is straight with top management. Their utterly dishonest smoke-screen is just more proof that they should be removed immediately for gross incompetence.
Just my thought. Unfortunately, the truth is often not easy to find here. That makes it easier for the scum that makes false claims and far, far harder for the real victims that already have to struggle with what was done to them. Apparently, there are countries in Europe where the police does not follow-up on more than half of the rape complaints because they have absolutely no credibility. It seems to be quite common in child custody cases as well and the criminals (yes, criminals) that make these false claims usually get away with it without being punished because the police just does not investigate obviously bogus claims, apparently to not make it even harder for real victims. While I can understand that, this encourages false claims even more.
Personally, I think making a false claim of rape is about on the same moral level as raping somebody. I think that if proven beyond a doubt, people doing this should go away for the same time that a rapist does.
Indeed. Whenever some people are really discriminated against, you find others that are just trying to get a free ride on this. Pretty bad. The worst case is women claiming to have been raped, when nothing like that happened. It is just far too easy to do and apparently many cannot resist.
1. Ask for passcode
2. Unlock phone, find no incriminating evidence, change passcode and lock phone again
3. Claim wrong code was provided
Voila, guilty until proven innocent. Which the accused cannot do.
That is the point: "mostly limited to". That is a statement about use, not about what _can_ be done with it. Also, fact of the matter is that it is extremely expensive to kill people with a real vaccine and you need some specific illness that is actually beneficial and saves their life. There are examples for that, but due to the price-tag and the difficulties to achieve the outcome I do not think that has been done.
Thanks.
Vaccines can be used as a weapon and as medical experiments.
Not generally, but tools that anybody can manufacture (here: software) have that nature.
But what when your apps app apps app? Then you are really apped and have to app!
Naa, that would be alcohol! Technology only becomes important when the beer/wine runs out.
That is bullshit. Even with a legal guardian, all rights that you can competently use yourself are yours. And that guardian must legally only use the rights assigned to them in your interest. Now, the mother here wanted to find out whether she committed suicide. That is not in the interest of the daughter, but in the mother's and hence she cannot do that, because it would be a misuse of her role as guardian.
But as far as I understand (after reading up a bit more on the case) the issue here was that the mother wanted access to private communication and that she cannot get because that would violate the right to communication privacy of the others involved in that communication. Yes, that also means parents cannot legally read their children's mail or email. Another reason to make sure your kids trust you.