I can see plenty of motive to force the workers to pay for their own work stations. You can simply fort up the servers and dump the headache of dealing with the &*^%$# programmers and their work stations. The data entry and administrative systems will still be locked down and controlled; but, all the others will have to fend for themselves.
If the can't morph a show into alien abduction, an old fashioned monster movie, or a search for the supernatural, they aren't interested in. They have their formula and their sticking to it.
When I went to school, they did not have a computer science degree. I was able to take some computer courses while getting a math degree. I've been a professional computer programmer for 40 years now. (I do not want to retire!) I think that my initial computer courses were necessary in order to get me going. After that initial university work, most training has been self or job driven. I've had some thoughts over the years about computers and school:
1) If I could do one thing over again, it would involve improving my writing and communication skills. In the end you must communicate your ideas in order to get the best work. You must listen to your users and really hear what they have to say in order to do the best work.
2) Group projects and your ability to work in groups are part of the corporate landscape. Schools that teach people real techniques for working in groups give their students a real leg up in corporate work environments. This is not the same as giving 5 mismatched students a group project.
3) Education should give you a human perspective that gives the semantics of your work lasting relevance. Training will teach you the syntax.
4) HR in most companies takes care of government employment regulations and delivers internal management guidelines. HR does some recruiting work that filters on your credentials. HR is not generally capable of figuring out if you can do the job; but, they can prevent you from getting the chance.
5) If your love for the work does not come across in the interview, only a short sided fool will hire you.
I think it is a lot more significant when you talk about missed deadlines. If you are doing a lot of that in your are, then something is not right. It is not unusual for people presented with tough problems to take a break and then come back with a new perspective. Missing deadlines means that people are not estimating their work correctly and not taking those esitmates seriously.
In the end your leadership is responsible. Have a serious talk with your boss. Make it positive and ask about his/her relationship to the total work of your area. Find out how you fit in, the history of the group, and what the career posibilities are. Couched this way, you will perhaps get a clue as to what is going on. If you've diagnosed a true problem and no one is interested in fixing it, you might want to be looking for a company that will be in business the next couple of years--your current one may not be around.
Imagine having to belive something on faith and work in a career based on facts and logic. Maybe that produces unbearable tension in some people, leading to total breakdown and insate activities.
Engineering on is own is tension filled, building sturdy bridges that are cheap, fast programs that don't use a lot of storage, and all the other contradictory requirments that must be meshed, questioned, implemented, or ignored. I suspect the pressure may be just too much for some people when you add cultural pressure to "just believe".
Personnel will offer up interns with the objective of locking in people who will eventually become important contributors. Most of the time they are not used well. It is hard for a working department all involved with their day to day challenges to get people trained and involved. But, they will look at how you respond and interact with other professionals and perhaps give you a leg up when it comes time to apply for a permanent job. You could also get some real work that is interesting and challenging. It is sort of the "luck of the draw".
I'd say offering you 8 bucks an hour is an insult. I am betting that they have some really crappy work that they need done. They aren't interested in attracting anyone long term with that kind of investment. You will be telling them that they can continue to abuse you when you graduate. But, my bet is that this is just an example of folk wanting a temp and not wanting to pay them full value.
The IBM communications controllers of the 70s and 80s pushed data onto and off of coms lines by executing instructions that pushed from internal buffers to external buffers or vice versa. I think that is pretty much part of any basic communications setup. The IBM mainframes used channel programs that did the same thing but more elaborately.
No need for bankruptcy, just require that every used car lot with a rusted Chevy pay a little stipend to GM when they finally sell the turkey. You could expand the idea to include a charge for replacing components with non-standard parts (violation of reverse engineering clauses). Maybe you could even get tow companies to pay.
Personally, I try to work the words "bomb plan", "explosive" or "sulfuric acid as a catalyst" in all of my instant message conversations online. The poor analysis software must get lonely without stuff to find in most communications.
Of course a real anarchist bomb making skeptic might also include words like "tax dodge" or "after downing street" in their mail...
Has anyone else been in the wars associated with the choice of a development language? I have and it isn't pretty. When one or the other waring camps has "won", you find development going on in the other language in little secret enclaves. "I told you that god would get you" memos flowing years later.
It is an organization founded by and populated by people who have lost loved ones to drunks. I would not expect them to be amused or entertained. I think expecting them to be "liberal" on this is too much to ask. Ignore them and don't do game things in real life.
I would be willing to bet that 100 percent of any protocol can't be patented if you really to a thorough search. They all amount to some sort of conversation that has its roots in "How we talk". Humans have been doing this for a long time. If I remember correctly, folks like IBM opposed software patents in the 70s, believing that they would stifle innovation and that they weren't the right mechanism. They only started to do them as a defense mechanism. (They negotiate a lot of mutual use agreements with their portfolio.... You infringe to, let's talk!)
Patents were designed to protect people that had to invest millions in manufacturing infrastructure. (Why would they invent if anyone could copy without paying.) Now they are being used to suck money from people who are contributing.
There are two parts to the process of getting a job. The first is getting by the "filters" in personnel. Those people tend to be influenced by things that a hiring manager may not care about. It never hurts to have good grades and a college with a good reputation when you are dealing with them.
Hiring managers are more likely going to ask questions that probe your capabilities. If the college prepared you, it won't matter which college it was.
Capers Jones has some real data. If you aren't familiar with his work look it up. He reported a range of success rates based on the types of projects. It seems reasonable to believe that large abstract projects will have more chance of failure because of the complexities that large numbers of people introduce and the difficulty of keeping something funded that the executives don't understand.
The first chooser of what we see is the Product. Shows are effectively chosen by the sponsors of a product and their choice of an audience that can be influenced to buy their product. Think about the number of "undifferentiated products" that are advertised on TV and you get some clue as to why the shows are all pretty dumb. We get to see a majority of shows that are there to attract folk who will be influenced to buy a product based on its jingle or the handsomeness of its spokesman. One of my pet peeves is the industry position that audience selection is a great democratic process where we choose what we want to watch. They don't acknowledge that the choices are made by audiences of products that can only be sold through mass advertising.
The good news for the dvr crowd is that there are a lot of programs across 24 hours 7 days a week and the 100s of channels. You can actually find enough shows to give yourself some entertaining tv a few nights a week.
What would really boost viewing quality would be the ability to cut out the hemorrhoid cream salesmen making the initial choice of which shows get produced. (Is it any wonder that these shows are often a pain in the...) I am one of those crazy people who would pay good money to see more Firefly or for that matter just about anything that Joss Whedon wanted to offer on a subscription basis. I know that there are all kinds of series that attract fiercely loyal audiences that feel the same.
I think that the subscription series is the next step.
I think you are right; but, more interesting is the whole question of whether software patents serve any public good at all. The original reason for patents is to see to it that inventors are rewarded for innovations that might be very expensive to develop. It seems to me that a lot software patents tend to look like someone patenting air. The expensive part of software development is almost constant in a given software development process. The special little algorithms that people develop don't look the same to me as the car Alternator. (I think that was a Chrysler innovation.)
Take 100 groups of people working on the problems solved by some of these patents. Now project how many of these groups would fail to solve the problem. Would the answer be larger than 1 in most cases? The only utility of software patents is to increase the number of billable hours in corporate law firms.
IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is. A relatively large percentage of their big mainframes are sold with LINUX running on them. The reason for having a large number of patents is to have the leverage to negotiate mutual use agreements. Balmer and MS will cause trouble by forcing some sort of mutual use agreement while spreading fear and doubt in the potential users of LINUX.
MS has got to be feeling some pressure with lack luster VISTA success. They have huge amounts of cash; but, the business analysts have to be wondering how long it will last if their cash cows start to under produce. When stocks sell at large multiples of their earnings the price is set by confidence that the company's earnings will increase at a steady rate. If confidence in the company's ability should fail, MS would be very disrupted. It hasn't happened yet; but, they have to allay the fears of people who recommend stocks.
My Son-in-law runs a political web site, AfterDowningstreet.org. He found that all of his emails were being blocked because he included a link to the web site in his signature. Subsequent investigation showed that Semantic had been hired by Comcast to do filtering. They were invoking filtering on very flimsey compliants. There were no warnings or indications that mail had been blocked, other than people called him and told him that they had not received expceted communications. Eventually the block was removed; but, not before they had caused plenty of trouble.
I wonder if the government knows exactly what it is looking for? Consider that the NSA data mining program has "slopped over the edge" a bit and the government already has some stuff of interest. They would not be able to use this material as it has been obtained illegally. However, if they innocently and legally obtained the same material with their requests, they could then persue legal action.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see plenty of motive to force the workers to pay for their own work stations. You can simply fort up the servers and dump the headache of dealing with the &*^%$# programmers and their work stations. The data entry and administrative systems will still be locked down and controlled; but, all the others will have to fend for themselves.
I was wondering if anyone saw the irony. Thanks :-)
If the can't morph a show into alien abduction, an old fashioned monster movie, or a search for the supernatural, they aren't interested in. They have their formula and their sticking to it.
They are already looked down on by the other services because of their lackadaisical discipline. Now they will be less well informed.
See what I mean about writing skills, "short sighted" not "short sided", although it is a pretty funny malapropism. :-D
When I went to school, they did not have a computer science degree. I was able to take some computer courses while getting a math degree. I've been a professional computer programmer for 40 years now. (I do not want to retire!) I think that my initial computer courses were necessary in order to get me going. After that initial university work, most training has been self or job driven. I've had some thoughts over the years about computers and school:
1) If I could do one thing over again, it would involve improving my writing and communication skills. In the end you must communicate your ideas in order to get the best work. You must listen to your users and really hear what they have to say in order to do the best work.
2) Group projects and your ability to work in groups are part of the corporate landscape. Schools that teach people real techniques for working in groups give their students a real leg up in corporate work environments. This is not the same as giving 5 mismatched students a group project.
3) Education should give you a human perspective that gives the semantics of your work lasting relevance. Training will teach you the syntax.
4) HR in most companies takes care of government employment regulations and delivers internal management guidelines. HR does some recruiting work that filters on your credentials. HR is not generally capable of figuring out if you can do the job; but, they can prevent you from getting the chance.
5) If your love for the work does not come across in the interview, only a short sided fool will hire you.
Please decide to do both training and education.
I think it is a lot more significant when you talk about missed deadlines. If you are doing a lot of that in your are, then something is not right. It is not unusual for people presented with tough problems to take a break and then come back with a new perspective. Missing deadlines means that people are not estimating their work correctly and not taking those esitmates seriously.
In the end your leadership is responsible. Have a serious talk with your boss. Make it positive and ask about his/her relationship to the total work of your area. Find out how you fit in, the history of the group, and what the career posibilities are. Couched this way, you will perhaps get a clue as to what is going on. If you've diagnosed a true problem and no one is interested in fixing it, you might want to be looking for a company that will be in business the next couple of years--your current one may not be around.
Imagine having to belive something on faith and work in a career based on facts and logic. Maybe that produces unbearable tension in some people, leading to total breakdown and insate activities.
Engineering on is own is tension filled, building sturdy bridges that are cheap, fast programs that don't use a lot of storage, and all the other contradictory requirments that must be meshed, questioned, implemented, or ignored. I suspect the pressure may be just too much for some people when you add cultural pressure to "just believe".
Personnel will offer up interns with the objective of locking in people who will eventually become important contributors. Most of the time they are not used well. It is hard for a working department all involved with their day to day challenges to get people trained and involved. But, they will look at how you respond and interact with other professionals and perhaps give you a leg up when it comes time to apply for a permanent job. You could also get some real work that is interesting and challenging. It is sort of the "luck of the draw".
I'd say offering you 8 bucks an hour is an insult. I am betting that they have some really crappy work that they need done. They aren't interested in attracting anyone long term with that kind of investment. You will be telling them that they can continue to abuse you when you graduate. But, my bet is that this is just an example of folk wanting a temp and not wanting to pay them full value.
The IBM communications controllers of the 70s and 80s pushed data onto and off of coms lines by executing instructions that pushed from internal buffers to external buffers or vice versa. I think that is pretty much part of any basic communications setup. The IBM mainframes used channel programs that did the same thing but more elaborately.
That's it! I am patenting use of letters in recognizable patterns to represent spoken language!
No need for bankruptcy, just require that every used car lot with a rusted Chevy pay a little stipend to GM when they finally sell the turkey. You could expand the idea to include a charge for replacing components with non-standard parts (violation of reverse engineering clauses). Maybe you could even get tow companies to pay.
Personally, I try to work the words "bomb plan", "explosive" or "sulfuric acid as a catalyst" in all of my instant message conversations online. The poor analysis software must get lonely without stuff to find in most communications.
Of course a real anarchist bomb making skeptic might also include words like "tax dodge" or "after downing street" in their mail...
Has anyone else been in the wars associated with the choice of a development language? I have and it isn't pretty. When one or the other waring camps has "won", you find development going on in the other language in little secret enclaves. "I told you that god would get you" memos flowing years later.
I believe that I was using tree views on 2741 terminals in 1971 on cp67 and tss S/360 systems.
If you were to combine the patent on dirt and the tree view, you would effectively kill the keeping of potted plants in cubicles. :-P
Very good, ditto the mod points.
It is an organization founded by and populated by people who have lost loved ones to drunks. I would not expect them to be amused or entertained. I think expecting them to be "liberal" on this is too much to ask. Ignore them and don't do game things in real life.
I would be willing to bet that 100 percent of any protocol can't be patented if you really to a thorough search. They all amount to some sort of conversation that has its roots in "How we talk". Humans have been doing this for a long time. If I remember correctly, folks like IBM opposed software patents in the 70s, believing that they would stifle innovation and that they weren't the right mechanism. They only started to do them as a defense mechanism. (They negotiate a lot of mutual use agreements with their portfolio.... You infringe to, let's talk!)
Patents were designed to protect people that had to invest millions in manufacturing infrastructure. (Why would they invent if anyone could copy without paying.) Now they are being used to suck money from people who are contributing.
There are two parts to the process of getting a job. The first is getting by the "filters" in personnel. Those people tend to be influenced by things that a hiring manager may not care about. It never hurts to have good grades and a college with a good reputation when you are dealing with them.
Hiring managers are more likely going to ask questions that probe your capabilities. If the college prepared you, it won't matter which college it was.
Capers Jones has some real data. If you aren't familiar with his work look it up. He reported a range of success rates based on the types of projects. It seems reasonable to believe that large abstract projects will have more chance of failure because of the complexities that large numbers of people introduce and the difficulty of keeping something funded that the executives don't understand.
The first chooser of what we see is the Product. Shows are effectively chosen by the sponsors of a product and their choice of an audience that can be influenced to buy their product. Think about the number of "undifferentiated products" that are advertised on TV and you get some clue as to why the shows are all pretty dumb. We get to see a majority of shows that are there to attract folk who will be influenced to buy a product based on its jingle or the handsomeness of its spokesman. One of my pet peeves is the industry position that audience selection is a great democratic process where we choose what we want to watch. They don't acknowledge that the choices are made by audiences of products that can only be sold through mass advertising.
...) I am one of those crazy people who would pay good money to see more Firefly or for that matter just about anything that Joss Whedon wanted to offer on a subscription basis. I know that there are all kinds of series that attract fiercely loyal audiences that feel the same.
The good news for the dvr crowd is that there are a lot of programs across 24 hours 7 days a week and the 100s of channels. You can actually find enough shows to give yourself some entertaining tv a few nights a week.
What would really boost viewing quality would be the ability to cut out the hemorrhoid cream salesmen making the initial choice of which shows get produced. (Is it any wonder that these shows are often a pain in the
I think that the subscription series is the next step.
I think you are right; but, more interesting is the whole question of whether software patents serve any public good at all. The original reason for patents is to see to it that inventors are rewarded for innovations that might be very expensive to develop. It seems to me that a lot software patents tend to look like someone patenting air. The expensive part of software development is almost constant in a given software development process. The special little algorithms that people develop don't look the same to me as the car Alternator. (I think that was a Chrysler innovation.)
Take 100 groups of people working on the problems solved by some of these patents. Now project how many of these groups would fail to solve the problem. Would the answer be larger than 1 in most cases? The only utility of software patents is to increase the number of billable hours in corporate law firms.
IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is. A relatively large percentage of their big mainframes are sold with LINUX running on them. The reason for having a large number of patents is to have the leverage to negotiate mutual use agreements. Balmer and MS will cause trouble by forcing some sort of mutual use agreement while spreading fear and doubt in the potential users of LINUX.
MS has got to be feeling some pressure with lack luster VISTA success. They have huge amounts of cash; but, the business analysts have to be wondering how long it will last if their cash cows start to under produce. When stocks sell at large multiples of their earnings the price is set by confidence that the company's earnings will increase at a steady rate. If confidence in the company's ability should fail, MS would be very disrupted. It hasn't happened yet; but, they have to allay the fears of people who recommend stocks.
My Son-in-law runs a political web site, AfterDowningstreet.org. He found that all of his emails were being blocked because he included a link to the web site in his signature. Subsequent investigation showed that Semantic had been hired by Comcast to do filtering. They were invoking filtering on very flimsey compliants. There were no warnings or indications that mail had been blocked, other than people called him and told him that they had not received expceted communications. Eventually the block was removed; but, not before they had caused plenty of trouble.
I wonder if the government knows exactly what it is looking for? Consider that the NSA data mining program has "slopped over the edge" a bit and the government already has some stuff of interest. They would not be able to use this material as it has been obtained illegally. However, if they innocently and legally obtained the same material with their requests, they could then persue legal action.