You know what? If you sue and win, the taxpayers pay the bill. The cops don't. Even if you win, the cop who harrassed you doesn't lose his job. Lawsuits only work as a punishment when the sued parties lose when the lose. This does not happen when you sue governmental entities. If you sue the government, the taxpayer loses. Which is you.
Now, just to be clear, I love my scion. I get 30 mpg in town, 36 mpg on the freeway at 70 mph. At 3,50/gal for gas, the car will pay for itself in fuel savings over it's life.
The day Microsoft does anything truly smart to prevent malware is the day they switch to a linux kernel!
You say this like you think it's something that will never happen. Google David Cutler, VMS, and NT. Microsoft has learned/copied from other solid OS's before, and I think it's a safe conclusion that they probably will again. Linux's success is not lost on the boys from Redmond.
It bears repeating, MSFT's primary problem with malware is simply that they are the biggest target.
Just about every Ford I've ever ridden or driven has been a pretty shitty vehicle.
Hm-m-m. I dunno about that. I have a Ford Expedition, and drove two explorers before that over the last 15 years. They've been reasonable and reliable vehicles, and have been about as reliable as the two subarus we had during the same time. Both the Explorers had 120,000+ miles without major repairs when we sold them.
I drive a scion xB for a commuter vehicle. The Expedition is just for boat towing and family trips. The fit and finish on the ford is better than that of the scion.
I don't know about where you work, but where I work we signed an intellectual property assignment agreement as part of the hiring process, where inventions we arrived at through our employment are assigned to the company. This is pretty standard in the software/technology industry here in the US, and I have no reason to believe that these are invalid agreements.
Yes, it is a matter of priorities. I have two kids that are doing great in school and life, have been married for 26 years, and have a single digit golf handicap. I think my priorities are OK. Going the extra mile =/= working 70 hours a week, every week. I simply take care to understand what the real objective of our business is, and do what I reasonably can to help us reach that objective. My company realizes that our company success is one of my priorities, and they appreciate and reward that commitment. It helps that I can do a variety of things pretty well, including manage customers. People who can code, build a database, manage projects, and negotiate with customer executives are pretty useful.
Not having work stress to some degree tells me that you don't have any challenge serious enough to care about, which means you're in a low impact role. Nothing wrong with that, but that would bore me to tears. Life is too short to not care. Stress isn't necessarily bad - stress beyond your ability to handle it is.
I put in some big hours when we need to, but I was on the golf course at 2 pm yesterday, after leading (and nailing) a key customer meeting earlier in the day. My company doesn't care about your hours, they care about your results. Which is nice.
Newtons theory of gravity worked for a long time but we had to toss it when it started to fail.
You know, every time these discussions come up, stuff like this gets said, and it obscures an important subtlety in the debate. Newton's equations still work perfectly well for most things we care about. Very few people need to use anything but Newtonian approaches for real world calculations. When we estimate the trajectory of a bullet, baseball, or space shuttle, we use Newton, despite knowing that more accurate approaches exist. Newton's laws and their attendant equations work perfectly well to explain most of what is around us. It may not be "Truth" but it's a very useful approximation. Predictions made with it generally "just work" (tm). [/smirk]
since we don't have to pony up a RedHat license for each server.
Um, is this an 'am I stupid' test? If you have any sort of test environment, you run redhat on the test server and CentOS on production. Personally, I've done fine for four years now with Fedora in production. No support dollars. The precise reason you run linux is so you can multiply your servers without marginal SW cost. If you need to run Oracle or something that you can't multiply, then Solaris on big Sparc makes sense.
Which is where the discussion ends with me. I use Linux because it cuts my costs for fielding compute power. Sure, I could use Open Solaris, but why would I use code away from the center of the action? That's where the bug fixing is happening. The key thing for me is cheap hardware and cheap software. I use a heavily replicated environment, so one box going down isn't a big issue. Cost of the farm is. So Linux on cheap x64_86 is where it's at for me.
You'd be amazed at how obviously bad a lot of the work that these do, even though you're just getting out of college.
And you should be thoughtful about how much of this crap code passes the tests and gets the job done. Beautiful code is good, but it's a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. It's usually the result of clear thinking and good design, which are also useful, but not the end goal, either. The end goal is solving some problem, for the right amount of cost, for some customer/user. Make sure you know what that problem is and solve it, and you'll do well.
I'm not going to do more than I have to, just as management isn't going to pay me more or treat me better than they have to.
Could there be a cause and effect relationship here? I work harder than I have to, and have for more than a few years. I now make $180k a year, despite being probably would most people would consider to be a middle of the road developer.
I've seen good statistics that support this statement simplistically. To whit, conservatives donate more, as share of income, to charities than liberals do. Not poor people, charities. However, these donations include the amounts that people donate to churches, most of which does not make it back to an actual poor populations. In contrast, liberal donations tend to be more to organizations which are directly serving user communities.
For a simple example, Mormons are asked to donate 10+% of their pretax income as tithe to the church, little of which is used to serve people in need. Of food, that is.
I know people personally, who have presented to Bill in the last two years, and I can assure you that Bill is quite conversant with technical matters far beyond where the start button is. One of the guys is a dev lead at MSFT, and I guarantee you he isn't discussing the color of the Vista desktop.
Read your citation. The CSRA applies to civil servants only. Private employers have great latitude. The CSRA was intended to prohibit Bush from firing all the democrats.
Pff. You'd have evidence that someone accessed your site. Good luck getting a court to care about that. Good luck associating it with your job search - you can tie it back to the HR computer behind the router? Do you honestly think that you'd be able to convince a judge or jury in this day and age of the technical validity? Besides, if you did get access to the internal logs so that you can show that the NAT address was the HR bimbo's, you'd also show that that they googled other candidates, and refused them as well. How will you prove that it was any specific characteristic about you that caused them to reject you?
More likely, you'll arm the employer to show that you're litiguous, hostile, judgemental, and scary to boot, all of which are completely legal grounds to pass on you. Game, set and match for the employer.
Well, you'd pass on me and almost everyone I associate with. And a lot of other people over 40. How do you feel about age discrimination? How do you feel about people who make sloppy, unjustified assumptions? How do you feel about people who are intolerant of those not exactly like themselves? Because that's what you just showed us a little bit of about yourself.
There are oodles of people with an active online presence and real-life social life, who don't use social networking sites, not least because of this type of issue.
"Likely" is sufficient grounds for a hiring decision. This isn't the government. Private employers can hire you and fire you legally for most any reason other than a few protected ones, such as race, religion, sex, etc. They -absolutely- can refuse to hire you based on your political beliefs. Your views on abortion, drug law reform, party of preference, etc. are fair game. Refusing to hire you because they think you look/act shady is fair game. Refusing to hire you because you once smoked pot is fair game. Whether we think such behavior is reasonable or not.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what? If you sue and win, the taxpayers pay the bill. The cops don't. Even if you win, the cop who harrassed you doesn't lose his job. Lawsuits only work as a punishment when the sued parties lose when the lose. This does not happen when you sue governmental entities. If you sue the government, the taxpayer loses. Which is you.
Please cite the court records of your cases where you sued to prevent this.
Says the guy who was thrown up against the wall by the state police in Oregon, 1976. Talk is cheap, asshole.
Now, just to be clear, I love my scion. I get 30 mpg in town, 36 mpg on the freeway at 70 mph. At 3,50/gal for gas, the car will pay for itself in fuel savings over it's life.
The day Microsoft does anything truly smart to prevent malware is the day they switch to a linux kernel!
You say this like you think it's something that will never happen. Google David Cutler, VMS, and NT. Microsoft has learned/copied from other solid OS's before, and I think it's a safe conclusion that they probably will again. Linux's success is not lost on the boys from Redmond.
It bears repeating, MSFT's primary problem with malware is simply that they are the biggest target.
As does my 2007 ford expedition.
Just about every Ford I've ever ridden or driven has been a pretty shitty vehicle.
Hm-m-m. I dunno about that. I have a Ford Expedition, and drove two explorers before that over the last 15 years. They've been reasonable and reliable vehicles, and have been about as reliable as the two subarus we had during the same time. Both the Explorers had 120,000+ miles without major repairs when we sold them.
I drive a scion xB for a commuter vehicle. The Expedition is just for boat towing and family trips. The fit and finish on the ford is better than that of the scion.
I don't know about where you work, but where I work we signed an intellectual property assignment agreement as part of the hiring process, where inventions we arrived at through our employment are assigned to the company. This is pretty standard in the software/technology industry here in the US, and I have no reason to believe that these are invalid agreements.
Yes, it is a matter of priorities. I have two kids that are doing great in school and life, have been married for 26 years, and have a single digit golf handicap. I think my priorities are OK. Going the extra mile =/= working 70 hours a week, every week. I simply take care to understand what the real objective of our business is, and do what I reasonably can to help us reach that objective. My company realizes that our company success is one of my priorities, and they appreciate and reward that commitment. It helps that I can do a variety of things pretty well, including manage customers. People who can code, build a database, manage projects, and negotiate with customer executives are pretty useful.
Not having work stress to some degree tells me that you don't have any challenge serious enough to care about, which means you're in a low impact role. Nothing wrong with that, but that would bore me to tears. Life is too short to not care. Stress isn't necessarily bad - stress beyond your ability to handle it is.
I put in some big hours when we need to, but I was on the golf course at 2 pm yesterday, after leading (and nailing) a key customer meeting earlier in the day. My company doesn't care about your hours, they care about your results. Which is nice.
Is uR PeNi$ werking today?
No, we do predictive modeling and scoring.
Newtons theory of gravity worked for a long time but we had to toss it when it started to fail.
You know, every time these discussions come up, stuff like this gets said, and it obscures an important subtlety in the debate. Newton's equations still work perfectly well for most things we care about. Very few people need to use anything but Newtonian approaches for real world calculations. When we estimate the trajectory of a bullet, baseball, or space shuttle, we use Newton, despite knowing that more accurate approaches exist. Newton's laws and their attendant equations work perfectly well to explain most of what is around us. It may not be "Truth" but it's a very useful approximation. Predictions made with it generally "just work" (tm). [/smirk]
As does the theory of evolution.
since we don't have to pony up a RedHat license for each server.
Um, is this an 'am I stupid' test? If you have any sort of test environment, you run redhat on the test server and CentOS on production. Personally, I've done fine for four years now with Fedora in production. No support dollars. The precise reason you run linux is so you can multiply your servers without marginal SW cost. If you need to run Oracle or something that you can't multiply, then Solaris on big Sparc makes sense.
There must be a reason for that...
And that reason couldn't be that Sun is someone to sue if something goes wrong? Makes business sense, but not technical sense.
Even with more expensive boxen
Which is where the discussion ends with me. I use Linux because it cuts my costs for fielding compute power. Sure, I could use Open Solaris, but why would I use code away from the center of the action? That's where the bug fixing is happening. The key thing for me is cheap hardware and cheap software. I use a heavily replicated environment, so one box going down isn't a big issue. Cost of the farm is. So Linux on cheap x64_86 is where it's at for me.
You'd be amazed at how obviously bad a lot of the work that these do, even though you're just getting out of college.
And you should be thoughtful about how much of this crap code passes the tests and gets the job done. Beautiful code is good, but it's a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. It's usually the result of clear thinking and good design, which are also useful, but not the end goal, either. The end goal is solving some problem, for the right amount of cost, for some customer/user. Make sure you know what that problem is and solve it, and you'll do well.
I'm not going to do more than I have to, just as management isn't going to pay me more or treat me better than they have to.
Could there be a cause and effect relationship here? I work harder than I have to, and have for more than a few years. I now make $180k a year, despite being probably would most people would consider to be a middle of the road developer.
I dunno, in the brothels, there's plenty of bush trimming that gets done.
I've seen good statistics that support this statement simplistically. To whit, conservatives donate more, as share of income, to charities than liberals do. Not poor people, charities. However, these donations include the amounts that people donate to churches, most of which does not make it back to an actual poor populations. In contrast, liberal donations tend to be more to organizations which are directly serving user communities.
For a simple example, Mormons are asked to donate 10+% of their pretax income as tithe to the church, little of which is used to serve people in need. Of food, that is.
You have strong powers, my friend. Use them only for good. ;-)
404, my friend.
I know people personally, who have presented to Bill in the last two years, and I can assure you that Bill is quite conversant with technical matters far beyond where the start button is. One of the guys is a dev lead at MSFT, and I guarantee you he isn't discussing the color of the Vista desktop.
Read your citation. The CSRA applies to civil servants only. Private employers have great latitude. The CSRA was intended to prohibit Bush from firing all the democrats.
Better kill some more smart people. ;-)
Pff. You'd have evidence that someone accessed your site. Good luck getting a court to care about that. Good luck associating it with your job search - you can tie it back to the HR computer behind the router? Do you honestly think that you'd be able to convince a judge or jury in this day and age of the technical validity? Besides, if you did get access to the internal logs so that you can show that the NAT address was the HR bimbo's, you'd also show that that they googled other candidates, and refused them as well. How will you prove that it was any specific characteristic about you that caused them to reject you?
More likely, you'll arm the employer to show that you're litiguous, hostile, judgemental, and scary to boot, all of which are completely legal grounds to pass on you. Game, set and match for the employer.
Same here. I have the same name as a fairly major sports star. Good luck finding anything about me.
Getting email occasionally from female fans is an occasional side benefit.
Well, you'd pass on me and almost everyone I associate with. And a lot of other people over 40. How do you feel about age discrimination? How do you feel about people who make sloppy, unjustified assumptions? How do you feel about people who are intolerant of those not exactly like themselves? Because that's what you just showed us a little bit of about yourself.
There are oodles of people with an active online presence and real-life social life, who don't use social networking sites, not least because of this type of issue.
"Likely" is sufficient grounds for a hiring decision. This isn't the government. Private employers can hire you and fire you legally for most any reason other than a few protected ones, such as race, religion, sex, etc. They -absolutely- can refuse to hire you based on your political beliefs. Your views on abortion, drug law reform, party of preference, etc. are fair game. Refusing to hire you because they think you look/act shady is fair game. Refusing to hire you because you once smoked pot is fair game. Whether we think such behavior is reasonable or not.