Ah, you're in Seattle. Not really looking to relocate at the moment, but the fact that you even considered it is appreciated and encouraging (and might inspire me to bone up again on it; I've been letting myself languish in support roles for too long I think).
Outta curiousity, you guys mostly UNIX backend there, or a mix?
The man/woman has a point. If you're not able to find good engineers, almost certainly you are either a) not offering enough in the way of salary and other compensation, or b) are being too picky.
What I don't understand is the reluctance of many companies to foot the bill for training. If someone has a resume that looks great, but is lacking some skillset, hire'em and put in some money for training. I've heard of very smart situations where the deal is: We hire you (perhaps provisionally) and we send you to training. If you pass the training, we'll pay for most/all of it. Sounds smart to me. I think a lot of good folks would go for it.
Can't help but reiterate the bit about critical infrastructure, too. People just aren't paying enough to lure good engineers or what not. It's no small feat to be able to *properly* implement software designs or infrastructures (any goober can do it wrong or insecurely). Compensation should reflect that. Especially in infrastucture positions where the employee is basically on-call 24/7/365, their pay structure needs to reflect that they are working as often and hard as any other employee with similar employment demands.
Eh, my college taught OO design, but C++ is barely OO if you ask me (a case can be made that the amount of OO it is depends on the effort you want to put into it). Unfortunately, Java was just coming out, and as such was just making its way into the curriculum.
But you're right, if colleges aren't at least offering classes in modern programming techniques they're doing something wrong.
That may be the case with your organization, but it is (in my experience) not common.
I've had several experiences where a competent IT manager looking at my resume would realize that I have the experience they need. But, I constantly have recruiters advising me to add buzzwords so that the hiring director/manager will be more impressed.
Having interviewed candidates before, I know from experience that resumes can look great, but the candidates can be crap. The guy I ended up recommending had probably the least impressive resume visually, but the interview with him showed me he was independant, driven, competent, and had the experience to get the job done. He actually had less of the "terms" we were looking for in his paperwork, but the other people, while on paper more interesting, obviously weren't cut out for the work.
But when I deal with headhunters from the other end, invariably it's time for a round of buzzword bingo.
(actually the most annoying thing lately is calls from headhunters saying their client needs someone ASAP, and then we wait for days to get a decision from the client; I got one woman working for me who is noticably annoyed at their client for dragging it out. You run into that one?)
Read the article. They went to their ethics committee and had it cleared just like every other experiment with human subjects has to do.
From the link:
First off, Marcus didn't just up and decide to do the experiment. He got a green light from the human subjects committee here on campus to perform the experiment; a body of people whose job it is to say what is and is not ethical in experimentation. The fact of the matter is that there was no harm done and this experiment IS ETHICAL. Anyone whose tried to get such a blessing from the committee knows that they don't just okay anything that comes their way. I had to go through 3 rounds of revisions for my proposal simply to have 12 people sit down and test a piece of software. The fact is he went through the appropriate channels and was given permission to do it.
*chuckle* I seriously wonder sometimes what people are thinking when they translate. I mean, okay when you go from like Chinese or Japanese to English, I can understand some confusion, but from English to German is pretty damn simple.
3. Ease of service. The thin-client breaks down, what do you do? Unplug it, plug another machine in it's place, continue working. It takes about 5 minutes. Hell, the user could do it himself!
Are you *crazy*? If they can't handle VCRs, they can't handle thin-clients.
They still haven't fixed the Ranger class, so that's a dealbreaker for me. One of the few examples I can think of where a class was nerfed almost immediately and hasn't been usable in years since.
One interesting point about evolution is it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Organisms should be getting simpler, not more complicated. Interesting.
No.
This is a common misconception. There are many pages dealing with longer and more elaborate reasons why entropy doesn't contradict evolution, but the shortest one and most simple that I tend to use is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth's biosphere is not a closed system because it continually gets energy from the Sun.
It's worth noting (and the link I provide notes it as well) that Thermodynamics really doesn't directly apply very well to biological systems.
Now, as for creationism, it's just a theory too. However, it happens to be a theory with absolutely zero supporting evidence, and not a single aspect that can be observed in the field or replicated in the lab.
Please, please PLEASE stop using this line of reasoning and tell your friends to stop using it, too. Evolution is a _theory_, Creationism is a hypothesis (at best, a flat-out deliberate falsehood at worst). A theory is a hypothesis that has been shown by repeated experimentation and gathering of data to accurately explain and predict some phenomenon. You don't get to become a theory until the data you've gathered supports your claims over and over again, and have some predictive value in regards to future occurrances of said phenomenon. A "Law" is a misnomer, since it really isn't infallible, but tends to be used for theories which have held up over long periods of time (Laws of Gravity, Laws of Motion, etc). Laws can also change if new data is presented. It doesn't happen as often, but it does happen (Newtonian physics vs. Quantum Physics, for example).
A hypothesis is, as is often said in primary and secondary science classes, an "educated guess". That is, I saw something, and I have an idea how it might have happened. Now I must go out and perform experiments and gather data in order to see if my hypothesis is correct.
Note that I didn't say, "I assume that my hypothesis is correct, and then go out to find data that supports it." In science a claim must be falsifiable. That is, the hypothesis must possess within it the possibility that it will be proven false. However, this will only happen if the data shows the hypothesis to be non-useful. It does not happen if someone just doesn't like the data.
That is, of course, how Creationism works. The "fact" that Creationism is true is the basis of the study. It's axiomatic. In the mind of a "Creation Scientist", they're attempting to find proof that Young Earth Creation occurred (usually). As such, they ignore data that indicates otherwise, and only use (iffy) data to support their already agreed upon conclusion. Creationism has no predictive value, however, and no real evidence supporting it.
Saying "Creationism is just a theory" is stupid, and hurts the ability of people who really understand science in their attempts to enlighten those few Creationists who genuinely just don't understand enough about evolution to realize why Creationism isn't science. Additionally, it makes it seem like the scientific method is tenuous, and that modern science is just a losely assembled set of ideas that might-or-might-not-be-true depending on what people personally believe. Obviously this is not the case, but mis-using terminology only contributes to that misconception.
Regardless of what the other two responders said, I know what you are talking about.
when I got my degree, we got taught the basics and intermediates of CS alongside learning C/C++. In the upper division classes we could generally program in whatever language we chose,however.
Nowadays I see machines set to $1 to play. I'm not going to risk $1 on a machine that, these days, seems to have a 90% chance of being broken.
Tis a sad thing. Used to be that you could figure out what arcades had techs that cared, and took care of their machines (I know, I used to spend a disproportionate amount of time keeping pinball machines in good condition vs. the video uprights). Now if you can even find a good arcade, you almost never see one that is really well maintained.
Having played EVE off an on for a while now, I can say its definitely the most open-ended MMO I've seen (that still works, but I'll save my rantings about Second Life for another post). Ironically, it's often *too* open ended for a lot of players, since after you go through the training mission sequence, the game kinda says "yer on your own!" (sure, there are mission agents and stuff, but it's not like a "now you can go to THIS city and buy from THIS vendor" type thing).
It depends a lot on the habits of your friends, I think. I've admin'd and supported (more than) my share of windows desktops for friends and businesses, and the only people I really have noticed with spyware problems are heavy P2P downloaders or warez kiddies (or, obviously, people with no/unmaintained protection programs). Obviously, they are not only in the minority, but a significantly higher risk factor for infection.
Windows XP + Free AdAware + Free Spybot S&D + Free AVG Antivirus + Firefox
Ya put those on a machine, have them updated regularly, and it's really hard to get a messed up Windows install.
The only thing that really gets me is that while Spybot S&D has an awesome TeaTimer resident proggie, it still requires users to answer whether or not they want to add/remove esoteric sounding registry keys. The average user (not me) has no idea what those keys will or will not do. It's the only gap in the above stated armor that could be problematic.
Amazing how quickly one learns to speak in ways that dance around the point for a while instead of directly addressing the issues, after only spending just a few years in the business world, eh?
It's entirely possible that a small number of individual problems is easier to maintain than one large one that does the same thing. In this case, it might be easier to do the coordination between the C programs in $SCRIPTING_LANG than it would be in C, if for no other reason than it might be easier to write and maintain the coordination script in $SCRIPTING_LANG than C. If the C programs do sufficiently small and simple tasks, but the coordination is easier to code in $SCRIPTING_LANG there definitely could be benefits to doing it that way.
Slashdot Mirror
INDEED!
Outta curiousity, you guys mostly UNIX backend there, or a mix?
So you feel like hiring a fast-talkin' guy with rusty C/C++ skills on Linux/Solaris? ;)
What I don't understand is the reluctance of many companies to foot the bill for training. If someone has a resume that looks great, but is lacking some skillset, hire'em and put in some money for training. I've heard of very smart situations where the deal is: We hire you (perhaps provisionally) and we send you to training. If you pass the training, we'll pay for most/all of it. Sounds smart to me. I think a lot of good folks would go for it.
Can't help but reiterate the bit about critical infrastructure, too. People just aren't paying enough to lure good engineers or what not. It's no small feat to be able to *properly* implement software designs or infrastructures (any goober can do it wrong or insecurely). Compensation should reflect that. Especially in infrastucture positions where the employee is basically on-call 24/7/365, their pay structure needs to reflect that they are working as often and hard as any other employee with similar employment demands.
But you're right, if colleges aren't at least offering classes in modern programming techniques they're doing something wrong.
I've had several experiences where a competent IT manager looking at my resume would realize that I have the experience they need. But, I constantly have recruiters advising me to add buzzwords so that the hiring director/manager will be more impressed.
Having interviewed candidates before, I know from experience that resumes can look great, but the candidates can be crap. The guy I ended up recommending had probably the least impressive resume visually, but the interview with him showed me he was independant, driven, competent, and had the experience to get the job done. He actually had less of the "terms" we were looking for in his paperwork, but the other people, while on paper more interesting, obviously weren't cut out for the work.
But when I deal with headhunters from the other end, invariably it's time for a round of buzzword bingo.
(actually the most annoying thing lately is calls from headhunters saying their client needs someone ASAP, and then we wait for days to get a decision from the client; I got one woman working for me who is noticably annoyed at their client for dragging it out. You run into that one?)
From the link:
First off, Marcus didn't just up and decide to do the experiment. He got a green light from the human subjects committee here on campus to perform the experiment; a body of people whose job it is to say what is and is not ethical in experimentation. The fact of the matter is that there was no harm done and this experiment IS ETHICAL. Anyone whose tried to get such a blessing from the committee knows that they don't just okay anything that comes their way. I had to go through 3 rounds of revisions for my proposal simply to have 12 people sit down and test a piece of software. The fact is he went through the appropriate channels and was given permission to do it.
If it makes money, the chances of making at least one of the other books into a movie increases.
Even the crappy Dungeons and Dragons movie gets a sequel because it made a profit.
http://free.grisoft.com/doc/2/lng/us/tpl/v5
Linked off the first hit on google for "free antivirus"
*chuckle* I seriously wonder sometimes what people are thinking when they translate. I mean, okay when you go from like Chinese or Japanese to English, I can understand some confusion, but from English to German is pretty damn simple.
I really hope someone besides me gets this ST2:WoK reference. I'll be saddened, if not.
Are you *crazy*? If they can't handle VCRs, they can't handle thin-clients.
They still haven't fixed the Ranger class, so that's a dealbreaker for me. One of the few examples I can think of where a class was nerfed almost immediately and hasn't been usable in years since.
No.
This is a common misconception. There are many pages dealing with longer and more elaborate reasons why entropy doesn't contradict evolution, but the shortest one and most simple that I tend to use is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth's biosphere is not a closed system because it continually gets energy from the Sun.
It's worth noting (and the link I provide notes it as well) that Thermodynamics really doesn't directly apply very well to biological systems.
Please, please PLEASE stop using this line of reasoning and tell your friends to stop using it, too. Evolution is a _theory_, Creationism is a hypothesis (at best, a flat-out deliberate falsehood at worst). A theory is a hypothesis that has been shown by repeated experimentation and gathering of data to accurately explain and predict some phenomenon. You don't get to become a theory until the data you've gathered supports your claims over and over again, and have some predictive value in regards to future occurrances of said phenomenon. A "Law" is a misnomer, since it really isn't infallible, but tends to be used for theories which have held up over long periods of time (Laws of Gravity, Laws of Motion, etc). Laws can also change if new data is presented. It doesn't happen as often, but it does happen (Newtonian physics vs. Quantum Physics, for example).
A hypothesis is, as is often said in primary and secondary science classes, an "educated guess". That is, I saw something, and I have an idea how it might have happened. Now I must go out and perform experiments and gather data in order to see if my hypothesis is correct.
Note that I didn't say, "I assume that my hypothesis is correct, and then go out to find data that supports it." In science a claim must be falsifiable. That is, the hypothesis must possess within it the possibility that it will be proven false. However, this will only happen if the data shows the hypothesis to be non-useful. It does not happen if someone just doesn't like the data.
That is, of course, how Creationism works. The "fact" that Creationism is true is the basis of the study. It's axiomatic. In the mind of a "Creation Scientist", they're attempting to find proof that Young Earth Creation occurred (usually). As such, they ignore data that indicates otherwise, and only use (iffy) data to support their already agreed upon conclusion. Creationism has no predictive value, however, and no real evidence supporting it.
Saying "Creationism is just a theory" is stupid, and hurts the ability of people who really understand science in their attempts to enlighten those few Creationists who genuinely just don't understand enough about evolution to realize why Creationism isn't science. Additionally, it makes it seem like the scientific method is tenuous, and that modern science is just a losely assembled set of ideas that might-or-might-not-be-true depending on what people personally believe. Obviously this is not the case, but mis-using terminology only contributes to that misconception.
when I got my degree, we got taught the basics and intermediates of CS alongside learning C/C++. In the upper division classes we could generally program in whatever language we chose ,however.
Tis a sad thing. Used to be that you could figure out what arcades had techs that cared, and took care of their machines (I know, I used to spend a disproportionate amount of time keeping pinball machines in good condition vs. the video uprights). Now if you can even find a good arcade, you almost never see one that is really well maintained.
Having played EVE off an on for a while now, I can say its definitely the most open-ended MMO I've seen (that still works, but I'll save my rantings about Second Life for another post). Ironically, it's often *too* open ended for a lot of players, since after you go through the training mission sequence, the game kinda says "yer on your own!" (sure, there are mission agents and stuff, but it's not like a "now you can go to THIS city and buy from THIS vendor" type thing).
While likely true, you don't have to wade through the hoardes of crap TV programs on US TV the first time around ;)
It depends a lot on the habits of your friends, I think. I've admin'd and supported (more than) my share of windows desktops for friends and businesses, and the only people I really have noticed with spyware problems are heavy P2P downloaders or warez kiddies (or, obviously, people with no/unmaintained protection programs). Obviously, they are not only in the minority, but a significantly higher risk factor for infection.
Haven't tried it out yet. That might make me actually consider it.
Ya put those on a machine, have them updated regularly, and it's really hard to get a messed up Windows install.
The only thing that really gets me is that while Spybot S&D has an awesome TeaTimer resident proggie, it still requires users to answer whether or not they want to add/remove esoteric sounding registry keys. The average user (not me) has no idea what those keys will or will not do. It's the only gap in the above stated armor that could be problematic.
Amazing how quickly one learns to speak in ways that dance around the point for a while instead of directly addressing the issues, after only spending just a few years in the business world, eh?
It's entirely possible that a small number of individual problems is easier to maintain than one large one that does the same thing. In this case, it might be easier to do the coordination between the C programs in $SCRIPTING_LANG than it would be in C, if for no other reason than it might be easier to write and maintain the coordination script in $SCRIPTING_LANG than C. If the C programs do sufficiently small and simple tasks, but the coordination is easier to code in $SCRIPTING_LANG there definitely could be benefits to doing it that way.
I wonder if this may be the very first time on slashdot that a "???" didn't come before "PROFIT!"