I did years of work in Business Basic, and we managed to generally avoid go-to's even back then. Plenty of gosubs, but we tried to avoid the goto's.
I have managed to avoid using a single goto since then. It's been 21 years, and at least half a dozen languages. I don't even recall being tempted or wishing I could.
I would sue the shit of them under the FDCPA and win.
Seriously, all you need to do with any collection agency that is dunning you for a bill you don't owe is tell them you want a copy of the bill delivered to you as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When you receive the bill, you send the agency registered letter detailing why you aren't this person. Ignore them after that, until they piss you. If they continue to hound you, hire a lawyer, and own them. You will win, though you may not win much.
Collection agencies are in this for the money, and they are fairly smart about figuring out what a dry hole is when presented with reasonable evidence. They are also very aware of what they can't do under the FDCPA, and back down pretty quickly if you follow the rules as described here. In your letter, cite the act.
Well, you have to admit that a language with simple syntax, rich object libraries and reasonable performance that runs everywhere and is free has to be a bit suspect. Hell, we can't have our managers thinking we should be productive, can we?
Then we would have been spared the horror of Visual Basic, and then later, Python.
Burn, you witch, BURN!
I have heard many critiques of/complaints about Python, but you are the first to compare it to COBOL. I would be curious as to how you would make that case.
Users in an enterprise environment frankly shouldn't have access to install software at all.
Which leads us to the true security question/issue. The only truly secure system is one users don't have access to. In any other environment, where people are trying to get work done. a completely locked down environment can impede the business. The end goal, whether the security types like it or not, isn't a secure environment. It's to make money or reach some other objective. Security is relevant in that it supports your progress towards that objective. The economic reality is that there is tension between complete security, which keeps you from losing money, and productivity, which is how you make money.
In my company's environment, we have a pretty good focus on security, and things are generally pretty locked down. But we have classes of users that benefit from less locked down environments, because the IT guys don't know how to install something from source, for example, and can't be bothered (or, more charitably, are kept too busy) to step out of the MCSE box to learn. Fortunately, we have been able to work things out so that some of us enjoy a bit more freedom than others.
With sports betting you know the odds before you make the bet.
And, as a side note, some statisticians I know made a pass at using data mining and predictive modeling to see if they could beat the line, and found that they couldn't. The published line on games is apparently a pretty good example of crowd-sourcing working.
Replying anonymously because you would recognize the company I work for.
$14000 is 1/4 of the cost I was quoted this week for siting a 4 core windows server inside the company net. That was for a 4 core, 16 GB windows sql server. $60,000. Per fucking year. For a virtual server.
I am preparing a pitch to be allowed to outsource to the rapacious IBM, because they are fucking CHEAPER than the data center whores in our fortune 300 company.
This doesn't work for the MSFT contractors. MSFT has a small number of approved vendors, and you have to work through those vendors if you want to work at MSFT as a contractor. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I know a LOT of people for whom this is true.
I talked to a psychologist who dealt a lot with disadvantaged kids, mostly from families with a drug addicted parent. Her observation was that, for these kids, delayed gratification was illogical, because the reward in the future was highly uncertain in these kids' families. For these kids, it makes sense to eat the marshmallow, because the parents' promise that another marshmallow is coming was unreliable.
While I agree with your assessment of the program, it's erroneous to assume that the US Government is inefficient in handing the money out. Medicare and the SSA have administrative cost loads that are much cheaper than private insurance companies. This gives some data on the subject of Medicare, which notes:
"However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect âoeapples to applesâ comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population."
This gives some information on Social Security's costs, which are a meaty.6% of the benefits distributed. Yes, that's point six percent. See Fact # 10.
However, a good predetor can get almost any teen to do what they want.
Unlikely. I think healthy teens in healthy families are pretty safe from some sleaseball talking them into doing the dirty with a stranger. Predators do best with kids that are already at-risk for various reasons. If a kid has a bad family situation, or a family situation where religion/culture inhibit communication, he/she is an easier target. Kids who live in healthy homes, who can talk to their parents and other adults confidently, are pretty safe from being talked into something. In my opinion at least. I have two kids 13 1nd 16, and I'm not worried about some perv talking to them on facebook. We've talked about it a good amount, and they read newspapers. Kids too young to understand this situation and protect themselves shouldn't be on the internet unsupervised.
To the overall topic, I think this law is repugnant. Even sex offenders, the real ones, should generally have to communicate. If you're going to completely shut them out of society, you should just keep them in jail or kill them. Letting them back into society, and then treating them poorly for the rest of their lives is just a recipe for more violence. What do we expect someone whom we chase from every neighborhood in the country to do? Is it just possible that he will get angry and resentful, and feel no good reason not to lash out at society? That we do this to a group who on average are probably more violent and have poorer impulse control than the population as a whole seems short sighted to me.
That was my take. Unfortunately, she was a contractor, and a close friend of the VP of marketing. She was also neurotic with a fairly loose grasp of reality. My guy was trying to get her (privately owned) Macintosh to connect to the network. Our new VP of HR was bound and determined to find an example to test her new policy on sexual harassment. The guy almost got fired. I ended up going to the CEO, who made the right call.
So 30% of managers being sociopaths is something I could believe
That's a pretty broad statement, and I think warrants more proof.
According to this, it's in-between, around 3% for men, and 1% for women.
I have known perhaps 100 managers in my life closely enough to make some judgement about their sociopathy, though I am not a clinical professional. My impression is that the incidence rate of sociopaths in management is similar to that of the general population.
I think some of the folks here are confusing sociopathy, which is a clinical description of dysfunctional behavior, with behavior that operates against other people's interest, but may in fact be functional behavior in the comporate ecology. For reference, in the wikpedia article above, a diagnosis of sociopathy requires 3 or more of the following:
Three or more of the following are required:[1]
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
These aren't traits that are going to get you promoted. Simple unethical behavior doesn't rise to the diagnosis of sociopathy. Simple self centered behavior doesn't either.
I'll repeat my prior assertion: while assholes, liars and cheats do exist in management, as elsewhere, in my 30 years of work experience, the vast majority of managers that I have worked for and with are just people, with the attendant frailties that people exhibit. I think it's a mistake and possibly a self fulfilling prophesy to treat every manager you meet as someone who is about to harm you. One of the things that managers often exhibit more than the general pool of personnel is communication and perception skills. If you feel this way towards your boss, the odds are pretty good that he or she knows it. When it comes time to choose between you and someone who has a more productive relationship with their boss, don't you think that perception is going to operate against you?
Thank you for a very lucid description of how controls, checks and balances are implemented. In -any- voting system, adults have to get together and put into place what can only be described as basic accounting controls. This is not black art. It's well understood; every bank and most phone companies have years of experience in how to put processes in place to keep people from stealing. At least most of the time. But they manage to do it well enough, often enough, that none of us worries about putting our paycheck in a bank or audits our cell phone bill.
In the diatribes against electronic voting systems, we rarely focus on asking -how- we could put into place a working, economical, trustable voting process that extends the voting franchise more widely and trustably than what we have today. It used to be impossible to think we could have a free operating system. We did that.
Good luck with that. Most people figure out how to work the float (and miles, and usage perks) in their own favor. Look at it as a stupid tax if it works against you.
Yeah, I've also worked for liars, cheats and bullies. There is no denying that there are a fair number of dickheads in managerial roles. But it's simplistic and naive to assume that all managers are bad, just because some managers are bad.
If your metrics were a) appropriate and b) accurate, perhaps that would be a reasonable position.
However, sociopaths are incident at something like a 1% rate in society. Friendliness actually isn't what you should care about; competence, intelligence, and fairness are perhaps a little more interesting. Who gives a shit whether your manager is friendly. You want him/her to know their job, to take a long term view of their relationship with you so it makes sense for them to invest in you and protect you, and for them to be politically successful in the organization so that they have the clout to take care of you.
I'm not my employees' friend. I'm their boss. They are my resources. If they are successful, and I have done my job right, I am successful. If they become more capable, and I am adroit, I am able to do more, and get raises and promotions.
Now, in many cases, we've also become friends. I have friends who have worked for me, who have progressed to where I have worked for them. We're still friends.
It ain't about being frinedly, though. It's about getting shit done, repeatably. You can't do that if you screw people over, IMLTHO.
Slashdot Mirror
I did years of work in Business Basic, and we managed to generally avoid go-to's even back then. Plenty of gosubs, but we tried to avoid the goto's.
I have managed to avoid using a single goto since then. It's been 21 years, and at least half a dozen languages. I don't even recall being tempted or wishing I could.
Credit reports are not presented as a statement of fact - they are an opinion. As such, it's not defamation. See this.
I would sue the shit of them under the FDCPA and win.
Seriously, all you need to do with any collection agency that is dunning you for a bill you don't owe is tell them you want a copy of the bill delivered to you as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When you receive the bill, you send the agency registered letter detailing why you aren't this person. Ignore them after that, until they piss you. If they continue to hound you, hire a lawyer, and own them. You will win, though you may not win much.
Collection agencies are in this for the money, and they are fairly smart about figuring out what a dry hole is when presented with reasonable evidence. They are also very aware of what they can't do under the FDCPA, and back down pretty quickly if you follow the rules as described here. In your letter, cite the act.
I work with credit agencies as part of my job.
Not from Beloit (Reed, actually), but I kicked a few decks of FORTRAN punch cards while I was there. In the 70's, punk. ;-)
Well, you have to admit that a language with simple syntax, rich object libraries and reasonable performance that runs everywhere and is free has to be a bit suspect. Hell, we can't have our managers thinking we should be productive, can we?
Then we would have been spared the horror of Visual Basic, and then later, Python.
Burn, you witch, BURN!
I have heard many critiques of/complaints about Python, but you are the first to compare it to COBOL. I would be curious as to how you would make that case.
I think there is a company willing to do that. They're in Redmond, Washington.
Users in an enterprise environment frankly shouldn't have access to install software at all.
Which leads us to the true security question/issue. The only truly secure system is one users don't have access to. In any other environment, where people are trying to get work done. a completely locked down environment can impede the business. The end goal, whether the security types like it or not, isn't a secure environment. It's to make money or reach some other objective. Security is relevant in that it supports your progress towards that objective. The economic reality is that there is tension between complete security, which keeps you from losing money, and productivity, which is how you make money.
In my company's environment, we have a pretty good focus on security, and things are generally pretty locked down. But we have classes of users that benefit from less locked down environments, because the IT guys don't know how to install something from source, for example, and can't be bothered (or, more charitably, are kept too busy) to step out of the MCSE box to learn. Fortunately, we have been able to work things out so that some of us enjoy a bit more freedom than others.
With sports betting you know the odds before you make the bet.
And, as a side note, some statisticians I know made a pass at using data mining and predictive modeling to see if they could beat the line, and found that they couldn't. The published line on games is apparently a pretty good example of crowd-sourcing working.
You should check out Komodo for Python.
well played, sir.
Replying anonymously because you would recognize the company I work for.
$14000 is 1/4 of the cost I was quoted this week for siting a 4 core windows server inside the company net. That was for a 4 core, 16 GB windows sql server. $60,000. Per fucking year. For a virtual server.
I am preparing a pitch to be allowed to outsource to the rapacious IBM, because they are fucking CHEAPER than the data center whores in our fortune 300 company.
This doesn't work for the MSFT contractors. MSFT has a small number of approved vendors, and you have to work through those vendors if you want to work at MSFT as a contractor. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I know a LOT of people for whom this is true.
I talked to a psychologist who dealt a lot with disadvantaged kids, mostly from families with a drug addicted parent. Her observation was that, for these kids, delayed gratification was illogical, because the reward in the future was highly uncertain in these kids' families. For these kids, it makes sense to eat the marshmallow, because the parents' promise that another marshmallow is coming was unreliable.
Which is why Google is building a DC in The Dalles, OR, and Microsoft is building one in Moses Lake WA, right?
While I agree with your assessment of the program, it's erroneous to assume that the US Government is inefficient in handing the money out. Medicare and the SSA have administrative cost loads that are much cheaper than private insurance companies. This gives some data on the subject of Medicare, which notes:
"However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect âoeapples to applesâ comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population."
This gives some information on Social Security's costs, which are a meaty .6% of the benefits distributed. Yes, that's point six percent. See Fact # 10.
However, a good predetor can get almost any teen to do what they want.
Unlikely. I think healthy teens in healthy families are pretty safe from some sleaseball talking them into doing the dirty with a stranger. Predators do best with kids that are already at-risk for various reasons. If a kid has a bad family situation, or a family situation where religion/culture inhibit communication, he/she is an easier target. Kids who live in healthy homes, who can talk to their parents and other adults confidently, are pretty safe from being talked into something. In my opinion at least. I have two kids 13 1nd 16, and I'm not worried about some perv talking to them on facebook. We've talked about it a good amount, and they read newspapers. Kids too young to understand this situation and protect themselves shouldn't be on the internet unsupervised.
To the overall topic, I think this law is repugnant. Even sex offenders, the real ones, should generally have to communicate. If you're going to completely shut them out of society, you should just keep them in jail or kill them. Letting them back into society, and then treating them poorly for the rest of their lives is just a recipe for more violence. What do we expect someone whom we chase from every neighborhood in the country to do? Is it just possible that he will get angry and resentful, and feel no good reason not to lash out at society? That we do this to a group who on average are probably more violent and have poorer impulse control than the population as a whole seems short sighted to me.
That was my take. Unfortunately, she was a contractor, and a close friend of the VP of marketing. She was also neurotic with a fairly loose grasp of reality. My guy was trying to get her (privately owned) Macintosh to connect to the network. Our new VP of HR was bound and determined to find an example to test her new policy on sexual harassment. The guy almost got fired. I ended up going to the CEO, who made the right call.
I've heard numbers more like 5%.
So 30% of managers being sociopaths is something I could believe
That's a pretty broad statement, and I think warrants more proof.
According to this, it's in-between, around 3% for men, and 1% for women.
I have known perhaps 100 managers in my life closely enough to make some judgement about their sociopathy, though I am not a clinical professional. My impression is that the incidence rate of sociopaths in management is similar to that of the general population.
I think some of the folks here are confusing sociopathy, which is a clinical description of dysfunctional behavior, with behavior that operates against other people's interest, but may in fact be functional behavior in the comporate ecology. For reference, in the wikpedia article above, a diagnosis of sociopathy requires 3 or more of the following:
Three or more of the following are required:[1]
1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
These aren't traits that are going to get you promoted. Simple unethical behavior doesn't rise to the diagnosis of sociopathy. Simple self centered behavior doesn't either.
I'll repeat my prior assertion: while assholes, liars and cheats do exist in management, as elsewhere, in my 30 years of work experience, the vast majority of managers that I have worked for and with are just people, with the attendant frailties that people exhibit. I think it's a mistake and possibly a self fulfilling prophesy to treat every manager you meet as someone who is about to harm you. One of the things that managers often exhibit more than the general pool of personnel is communication and perception skills. If you feel this way towards your boss, the odds are pretty good that he or she knows it. When it comes time to choose between you and someone who has a more productive relationship with their boss, don't you think that perception is going to operate against you?
Thank you for a very lucid description of how controls, checks and balances are implemented. In -any- voting system, adults have to get together and put into place what can only be described as basic accounting controls. This is not black art. It's well understood; every bank and most phone companies have years of experience in how to put processes in place to keep people from stealing. At least most of the time. But they manage to do it well enough, often enough, that none of us worries about putting our paycheck in a bank or audits our cell phone bill.
In the diatribes against electronic voting systems, we rarely focus on asking -how- we could put into place a working, economical, trustable voting process that extends the voting franchise more widely and trustably than what we have today. It used to be impossible to think we could have a free operating system. We did that.
Good luck with that. Most people figure out how to work the float (and miles, and usage perks) in their own favor. Look at it as a stupid tax if it works against you.
Yeah, I've also worked for liars, cheats and bullies. There is no denying that there are a fair number of dickheads in managerial roles. But it's simplistic and naive to assume that all managers are bad, just because some managers are bad.
If your metrics were a) appropriate and b) accurate, perhaps that would be a reasonable position.
However, sociopaths are incident at something like a 1% rate in society. Friendliness actually isn't what you should care about; competence, intelligence, and fairness are perhaps a little more interesting. Who gives a shit whether your manager is friendly. You want him/her to know their job, to take a long term view of their relationship with you so it makes sense for them to invest in you and protect you, and for them to be politically successful in the organization so that they have the clout to take care of you.
I'm not my employees' friend. I'm their boss. They are my resources. If they are successful, and I have done my job right, I am successful. If they become more capable, and I am adroit, I am able to do more, and get raises and promotions.
Now, in many cases, we've also become friends. I have friends who have worked for me, who have progressed to where I have worked for them. We're still friends.
It ain't about being frinedly, though. It's about getting shit done, repeatably. You can't do that if you screw people over, IMLTHO.
The only defense for that is two fold:
1) develop more leet skilz
2) find an environment where the skilz deliver sufficient value to the employer.
That's superb. But it's anecdotal
And your experience isn't?