Re: Correlation does not equal cause
Wait, you aren't?
94 posts • joined 15 Nov 2007
What I'm talking about are the needless UI rewrites that don't actually do anything for users (web browsers seem to be the most egregious example of this)
Can I just call attention to the elephant in the room, and say the web browser isn't quite the most egregious example the author could have thought of?
Microsoft and their products...Office, Windows. Who the hell thought putting a phone interface on a server was a good idea? Anyone? Word/excel/ect...all seem to have significant UI changes every version, but I've yet to hear a clear reason why.
By comparison, browser changes are relatively benign. There's tabs, address/search bar and bookmarks. Everything else just gets in the way of the actual webpage you're trying to view. Sure, icons might change a bit...menus might shift...but as most of us aren't poking around in there too much anyway, there isn't any muscle memory to trip over while trying to do common tasks.
I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. By this point I think we've come to the conclusion that it's not discriminatory hiring practices that are causing the numbers, but rather a deeper cultural issue.
If that's the case, then why should companies care? They should be hiring the best candidates for the positions, and indeed, that seems to be what is happening.
Where's the problem?
"Let the politicians decide"?
That sounds like a punchline to a terrible/terrifying joke. Let the politicians decide? Have you been watching the primaries, there Brad? Do any of those folks seem like the kind of people who are swayed by "facts"? Have you seen any dump trucks and tubes lately? Brad, have you paid *any* attention, at all, to how over government works...ever?
He may very well have said, "I'm bought and paid for, so treat my opinion accordingly", because honestly? That's all I heard.
Cisco, overly complex? No way!
I don't see the point in "TEH CLOUDZ!!!" for voip service when things like asterisk exists. It may not be as featureful as the big names ( and I say that only because I don't have a full understanding of the big name products ), but I have yet to run into something that it can't do in small/medium size businesses.
Well, aside from draining their wallets of course. Utilize existing hardware? Check. Basic and advanced call duties? Check. Transparent auditing of calls and caller behavior? Check. Unlimited extensions ( up to hardware maximum )? Check. Open standards? Check.
Licensing fees? *crickets*.
Nope, I can't in good conscious recommend offsite voip systems.
I get what he's saying, and he has a point. Point of fact, it's an old point, and one that has already been solved; why not make "Net Neutrality" mean that ISPs are to honor TOS bits?
I realize this means client software/hardware can wreck havoc with incorrectly setting TOS and the like, but that's not something that should be handled by ISPs. They have proven they aren't trust worthy.
You know, I can't help but imagine that somewhere in Sony, there's "that" IT guy who's been screaming, probably for years, that they need to take security seriously. He's probably been reprimanded for it, because he won't let it drop.
Putting aside all the evil bullshit Sony has pulled in the past, I'd say they probably deserve this because they didn't take security seriously. There should have been no way a single hack, or even a series of hacks, have gotten this much data. Compromised them this much.
I will never understand the need to chase specific classes of people for professions. Are we really so short on willing coders that we need to entice disinterested parties into the job?
I mean, isn't the end goal here to get people who aren't that interested in doing the job INTO the job over those that ARE interested in doing it? Does that make sense to anyone?
Haven't you heard? It's all about the "Internet of Things". Now, I can hear you cynics out there thinking ( it's a gift ), "But things were already on the internet!", and you'd be "technically" correct ( especially in the case of some specialty fetish sites ). But what we're talking about here are "Things(tm)". You know. With a capital T.
Presumably, clouds would constitute a "Thing(tm)". Web2.0? Perhaps another "Thing(tm)".
Maybe Adobe's problem isn't the draconian DRM, nor it's over-reliance on their obviously incompetent staff, but that they simply do not have enough "Things(tm)".
taking selfies is fine if you are a private individual, but I'm sorry, I expect more mature behavior out of my president. Unfortunately I'm stuck with this idiot for a few more years...
Then we'll get an entirely new idiot to tolerate for at least 4 years.
And no; selfies are not "fine". Tolerated, fine, but they're idiotic.
Folks have already spoken of the merits of Yahoo, so let me take a moment to talk about yelp.
Ostensibly they are a reputation service. Unfortunately, they work in much the same way as dating websites; they have every interest in hooking businesses for fees in order to "manage their reputations". I've worked with several businesses in this area, and have seen first hand how you get shill reviewers posting objectively false negative reviews, and the only way to correct it is to buy the expensive services from yelp, or to try to get your own customers to post positive reviews in order to offset the negative.
Now, I don't know if these are just individuals out to troll local businesses or there is something more nefarious going on, but ultimately it doesn't matter. When your business model relies on trolls, your entire company premise is ethically and morally flawed.
But why do we have those laws? And why do they apply to private businesses? I should be allowed to discriminate against religious nuts by refusing service if I so choose to.
As it stands, I can be compelled by law to perform service for people I may otherwise wish to refuse service for.
( granted, I'm guessing this only applies to protected classes and only if the reason to refuse service is because they exist in the protected class. Still .... )
Why is it wrong to allow private businesses to refuse service to whomever they choose?
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not taking the position of religious freedom here; Not only am I not religious, I happen to think the nutters behind this bill are small minded bigots. BUT, their business is their private property. In essence. Why should they be forced to provide service/product to people they don't want to?
The premise for the bill may be reprehensible, but the results are something else again.
It's worth noting that it's a two way street; businesses could decide to refuse service to those that refuse service. We aren't back in the Jim Crow days, where the minority is without power of their own; they could very well turn around and refuse service right back.
Haven't you ever considered the possibility that many of those IT departments are too under-budgeted and/or under manned to perform those requests?
Of course. The problem is that, quite often, IT depts will simply say "No", or possibly "No Money" and shutdown the request.
That's not the proper way to handle it, however. You need to involve the requesting department in the entire process. Done correctly, they'll come to the same conclusion you did. But they need to feel included and that you took their request seriously.
What I've found is that when you take the time to educate other departments, not only do they stop going around IT, but they work with you to lift those constraints. IT budgets are often low because IT is "magic" to everyone out side of IT, because no one has ever taken the time to show everyone what IT actually does.
Communication is, as ever, key.
I suspect they meant "obstructionists" as opposed to "gatekeeper".
Too often I've walked into IT depts where they do their best to torpedo every request. I've never really learned where IT depts get this attitude from, but it's prevalent. One of the first things I have to do anywhere I go is implement an objective approval process, complete with open communication to all involved parties.
Too often the IT decision making processes are voodoo to outside departments, precisely because there is no visibility, no communication. This breeds an environment where outside depts are resentful that IT nixed their FTP server project, and IT is resentful because of their perceived attitude problem.
I don't want to be in control of these projects, I just want to be involved.
It's shortsighted in the extreme for these outside departments to exclude their experts when making tech decisions. Too often I have had an outside department bring me a multi-thousand dollar software package only to be told, a) We don't have the server infrastructure for it and b) they didn't buy enough licenses and c) we don't have the network infrastructure to handle the remote sites.
Usually, it's even more basic than that; often they'll buy things that don't match their requirements. Not their "wants", but their requirements.
To say nothing about the various regulations that need to be observed.
IT, as a department, has untold amounts of experience with all things technical and regulatory. Not including them in a tech project is remarkably stupid.
As a citizen of the USA, allow me to apologize.
...although the wording here bugs the shit out of me. Had they asked me if I "believed" in evolution, I'd have probably said no, too. Belief requires faith. I do not blindly accept evolution; rather I appreciate the real, hard science that has gone into our current theory ( note: Scientific Theory, not the slang "Theory" which is more hypothesis ), and appreciate all of the hard work that we still have to do to further refine it.
But "believe in it"? It's a slap in the face to every evolutionary biologist to slap faith and belief on to the subject, and I refuse to do so.
"A woman in IT is like a male hairdresser. There really aren't that many of them, but the ones who are there are damn good at what they do."
I disagree with this generalization. I've worked with a lot of women in IT, and they were just as competent as their male counterparts; which is to say, not at all.
Presumably there must be a female IT employee out there that CAN do the work for which she is hired, I just have never met her.
Does anyone know what a "Cloud" really represents? I know sales drones and managers love to throw the term around, each believing it to mean whatever is more advantageous to their own interests ( which is a hoot in meetings, let me tell you ), but neither really understands what it means. Sadly, nor do most IT folks. So sit right back and prepare to receive some serious knowledge;
A Cloud is nothing more than a S.E.P., from HHGG, almost literally. When you contract for cloud services, what you are really do is making the infrastructure "Somebody Else's Problem".
Amazon offers SEP services for companies, but it's equally possible to turn IT into a service oriented service, where other divisions of the business buy infrastructure services. Ergo, it is entirely possible to have a "private cloud" service.
( It's possibly worth noting that I have a rational need to do violence to people who use the word "Cloud" seriously. )
Just imagine if "Always on" does become a requirement from here on out. What a great marketing angle for the next bunch of indie developers that want to make a splash with their game concepts.
Dear EA/Microsoft: Please do make an internet connection a requirement for all of your games, single player or otherwise.
Indies have the greatest potential for great games with original ideas. Let's give them all the help we can, shall we?
"There would be no competition and therefore no reason for the browsers to continue to evolve/improve."
Not necessarily. It's not that a single company would have a monopoly ( as MS had with IE way back when ), it would actually be several different companies all competing against each other, just using a common render as a starting point. MS moving to webkit would basically mean that website incompatibilities would go by the wayside, not that development would stagnate.
In fact, I think we'd end up seeing an explosion of GUI enhancements driven by that competition.
This sounds great until you consider how much it would cost to develop said software, the chances of getting it right ( practically nil ).
On top of that, then you need to find techs to support it; good luck with that. Unless you plan on building out a world class training system, dealing with the 1+ year plus lead time between hiring a tech and real usefulness, plus paying the wages necessary for retention...ya, it adds up quickly.
Seriously? I get we're supposed to be outraged, but how much in taxes should they be paying if they are currently legal? As it's legal, what additional authority gets to be in charge of "Tax moral obligations"?
This has always astounded me. Just like people, corporations will use whatever legal means necessary to save on taxes. They have every right to do so, and they have every obligation to do so. If the folks making the laws find that behavior distasteful....maybe they might make some laws to fix that behavior they find so reprehensible?
Of course they won't, because those laws are in place for a reason.
Faux outrage. Moving on.
RIM needs to bail on the hardware. They have demonstrated a unique incompetence in this area, and other companies are handing them their lunch. The App store needs to go too. In fact, the only thing they really should be focusing on is managing mobile data devices. They *should* be focusing on a point to point secure mobile solution. Indeed, they should have for a couple years now.
What do I mean by that? A client, available for all major phone platforms, that provides management and security functionality. Business email, stored encrypted on otherwise wide open devices. The ability to remotely wipe business data. To GPS track phones...the list goes on and on. They could very well have maintained their corporate presence had they jumped on board this ship years ago, but they still have a name in corporate data security and could trade on that, although it would be an uphill battle at this point.
Were I a share holder, I'be furious at the opportunities the board has continually wasted.
Then they are a part of their con, albeit unwittingly. Which doesn't absolve them of guilt. Indeed, that it was implicit fraud based on their own incompetence should make it worse, in my opinion.
My point was, however, that Autonomy can hardly be blamed if they got a clean bill of health prior to being sold. If the purchase was based on crap financials ( which I have no problems believing is the case here ), the only culpable party is the company making the purchase.
I would *love* to see HP sue itself, but I suspect that wouldn't be good for the bottom line.
If you stop and think about this, in order for HP's claim of fraud to hold weight, the corruption would have encompassed thousands of vendors, customers and partners, or the auditors themselves.
I find it extraordinary unlikely this team could have managed such a feat given all I know about them. It's far more likely HP's management team has a broken decision making process ( shock! horror! ), and are simply trying to save their jobs and, more importantly, their egos, by portioning blame elsewhere for their screw up.
"It has worked with Microsoft and the government for over three years on proposals to ensure privacy and still allow tracking without "Do not track" being turned on by default, it said, and now Redmond has acted unilaterally."
Did anyone else need to reread this a couple times before they got what was being said? So they want to track, even though consumers don't want to be tracked. And MS nixed that, instead making it the customer's choice.
And somehow, they're wrong for that decision. Is it any wonder we hate the advertising industry?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020