The problem with IT and support programming is that it is a cost-center, not a revenue-generator. You'll always be looked upon as a resource that is costing the company money that could be saved if they paid you less or got rid of you.
Right, but not all (most?) programming is support programming. Once you have a programming job that is contributing to a marketable product, you become a capitalize-able expense, and in my experience that tends to lead to higher pay as a result (though you still have to potentially deal with stupid metrics like "lines of code generated" and what not).
I would think that a vast majority of businesses (large and small) depend so heavily on IT, that proper talented IT staffing would be paramount. IT affects all "revenue generating" departments of a company.
One would think so, but it isn't the case. As one beancounter/manager said at a company meeting I attended a few weeks ago, "If we can't measure it, we can't manage it." It's really hard to get more money when your central metric as a department is "how much less we needed to spend this year."
Why is this modded troll? In the minds of many managerial types, "IT" can be done by the lowest bidder for the same quality as the highest bidder. I routinely see jobs that require you to basically be a master of every engineering/support discipline and start at $40k.
A good tester saves me a lot of embarrassment, and that will save me costumers = revenue
Yeah but the way the money bucket flowcharts work, developers/engineers fit neatly into the "makes stuff that we sell". The rest of IT is "stuff we spend money on", even though without that money being spent wisely to employ people who know what the hell they're doing, their profits would get whittled away steadily.
If only it was that simple. These days, indeed, there are more schools that have SE degrees, but more often than not, SE is a class or two within the CS undergrad degree (and increasingly an emphasis in masters programs).
It's a mistake to think that just because programming and web development were in a curriculum that the CS program wasn't accredited (they could have been an elective subset, for example).
Generally the certs that aren't the high-end stuff (CCIE, the microsoft "ranger" stuff, etc) are rather affordable if you get the self-training kits and just take the tests.
Where is it written that a person should take *the* most challenging job they possibly can with their experience? Some of us *like* having an easy job that pays well.
Not only are they not the same, but the article makes the mistake of assuming that someone who is certified or has a degree is a "trained" IT worker. I guess that's true if by trained one means "has no experience troubleshooting things in the realworld and not in a lab"...
I dunno how anyone can just work a few months and be considered a professional in IT.
It's not so foreboding. If you're good at what you do, have a minimum of social skills, and plan ahead, you'll do fine.
Many of the people who "have a hard time finding jobs in IT" really have no business being in IT to begin with, IMNSHO. YMMV as a developer (seems like the key is to make sure you've got some SE skills not just hardcore CS/math), but in my experience, there's always jobs for people who are talented.
What exactly were you looking for in IT? I've voluntarily left and gotten new jobs 3 times since 2001. So, either you do something really specialized, are in a shitty area (in which case it says little about the national IT market as a whole), or you were Doing It Wrong.
The D420's are nice, though like many of their same class, almost too small for me to comfortably type on for any period of time. Much more zip than the EeePC has, I imagine.
I think the point you missed out on was: "I'm too busy to care what you think about how I dress, because I spend my whole day trying to either fix your mistakes, or building something to support your latest harebrained scheme."
YMMV, but the only time I "dress up" is when senior management rolls in for a few days, and then the extent of it is that my jeans turn to some sort of slacks. By and large, if you're not wandering out to a client thingie, or trying to impress your non-technical boss, spending more than 3 minutes in the morning to get dressed is a waste of time.
Sadly I think your age group lacks and understanding of what "Professionalism" entails. YOu are confusing expertise with professionalism.
More likely his age group (whatever that is, seems a fairly meaningless term) realizes that "professionalism" in the sense that you seem to support it, is mostly a social structure that is at best largely inefficient and at worst pointless and/or counterproductive.
If the people whom you are a customer of do a great job, but aren't snappy dressers, you are unimpressed? That seems to be more of a testament to your flawed sense of measurements, than a flaw in how "his age group" thinks.
I think the moral of the story is, "know what your employer expects".
I wouldn't even think twice about walking away from a job offer from this company. If their dress code is that anal, I can only imagine what sorts of neurotic behaviors their management displays.
Why are they unpublished? Sure the first thought may be to "because they didn't have the outcome the sponsor wanted", but I bet a large number of them were unpublished because the results were weird and it was soon found that a control variable was messed up, or they were inadvertently found to be testing a variable they didn't anticipate, etc.
Though the fact that this guy is very anti-psychiatry makes the whole thing suspect anyway.
So, where's the bad parenting? Should Mom have not punished Megan for breaking the rules? Should they have waited another year or two before letting Megan online again?
Trusting her to log off unsupervised? Pretty obvious one, there, sparky. It's like having some kid playing with matches after burning down the tool shed, and then trusting them to put them away while you go out to the store.
Slashdot Mirror
Blackjack's statistical advantage relies on two things a) knowing when to perform which action, and b) knowing when to stop.
Beyond card counting, of course.
Or they play Blackjack.
Right, but not all (most?) programming is support programming. Once you have a programming job that is contributing to a marketable product, you become a capitalize-able expense, and in my experience that tends to lead to higher pay as a result (though you still have to potentially deal with stupid metrics like "lines of code generated" and what not).
One would think so, but it isn't the case. As one beancounter/manager said at a company meeting I attended a few weeks ago, "If we can't measure it, we can't manage it." It's really hard to get more money when your central metric as a department is "how much less we needed to spend this year."
Why is this modded troll? In the minds of many managerial types, "IT" can be done by the lowest bidder for the same quality as the highest bidder. I routinely see jobs that require you to basically be a master of every engineering/support discipline and start at $40k.
So yes, this *is* part of the problem.
Yeah but the way the money bucket flowcharts work, developers/engineers fit neatly into the "makes stuff that we sell". The rest of IT is "stuff we spend money on", even though without that money being spent wisely to employ people who know what the hell they're doing, their profits would get whittled away steadily.
If only it was that simple. These days, indeed, there are more schools that have SE degrees, but more often than not, SE is a class or two within the CS undergrad degree (and increasingly an emphasis in masters programs).
It's a mistake to think that just because programming and web development were in a curriculum that the CS program wasn't accredited (they could have been an elective subset, for example).
Generally the certs that aren't the high-end stuff (CCIE, the microsoft "ranger" stuff, etc) are rather affordable if you get the self-training kits and just take the tests.
Where is it written that a person should take *the* most challenging job they possibly can with their experience? Some of us *like* having an easy job that pays well.
True, but the details of how bash works in Windows seems to be just different enough than on UNIX that it makes it a huge pain.
Which is, of course, the reason why Powershell and its progenitors exist. Right tool for the job.
Not only are they not the same, but the article makes the mistake of assuming that someone who is certified or has a degree is a "trained" IT worker. I guess that's true if by trained one means "has no experience troubleshooting things in the realworld and not in a lab"...
I dunno how anyone can just work a few months and be considered a professional in IT.
It's not so foreboding. If you're good at what you do, have a minimum of social skills, and plan ahead, you'll do fine.
Many of the people who "have a hard time finding jobs in IT" really have no business being in IT to begin with, IMNSHO. YMMV as a developer (seems like the key is to make sure you've got some SE skills not just hardcore CS/math), but in my experience, there's always jobs for people who are talented.
What exactly were you looking for in IT? I've voluntarily left and gotten new jobs 3 times since 2001. So, either you do something really specialized, are in a shitty area (in which case it says little about the national IT market as a whole), or you were Doing It Wrong.
AFAIK there will never be an IE7 for OS X
Yeesh.
What do you know about /. when you can't even spell "Uhura" correctly.
Go back to C|Net, foul demon of mundanity!!
On average per what length of time? Or do you mean "over the course of a week"?
The D420's are nice, though like many of their same class, almost too small for me to comfortably type on for any period of time. Much more zip than the EeePC has, I imagine.
You've truly turned your husband into a metrosexual, haven't you. A shame, really.
I think the point you missed out on was: "I'm too busy to care what you think about how I dress, because I spend my whole day trying to either fix your mistakes, or building something to support your latest harebrained scheme."
YMMV, but the only time I "dress up" is when senior management rolls in for a few days, and then the extent of it is that my jeans turn to some sort of slacks. By and large, if you're not wandering out to a client thingie, or trying to impress your non-technical boss, spending more than 3 minutes in the morning to get dressed is a waste of time.
More likely his age group (whatever that is, seems a fairly meaningless term) realizes that "professionalism" in the sense that you seem to support it, is mostly a social structure that is at best largely inefficient and at worst pointless and/or counterproductive.
If the people whom you are a customer of do a great job, but aren't snappy dressers, you are unimpressed? That seems to be more of a testament to your flawed sense of measurements, than a flaw in how "his age group" thinks.
I think the moral of the story is, "know what your employer expects".
I wouldn't even think twice about walking away from a job offer from this company. If their dress code is that anal, I can only imagine what sorts of neurotic behaviors their management displays.
You mean like, maybe The Office?
Why are they unpublished? Sure the first thought may be to "because they didn't have the outcome the sponsor wanted", but I bet a large number of them were unpublished because the results were weird and it was soon found that a control variable was messed up, or they were inadvertently found to be testing a variable they didn't anticipate, etc.
Though the fact that this guy is very anti-psychiatry makes the whole thing suspect anyway.
Trusting her to log off unsupervised? Pretty obvious one, there, sparky. It's like having some kid playing with matches after burning down the tool shed, and then trusting them to put them away while you go out to the store.