Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 33732
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/05/27 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/27    

2004/9/23-24 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows, Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:33732 Activity:very high
9/23    Do you find a lack of respect for s/w developers and/or sysadmins
        in your workplace? I am in management (former sysadmin) and
        hearing management's opinions firsthand is now shocking and
        depressing. Time to switch careers or are there places that treat
        IT with respect? BTW, my team has members from Caltech, Harvey
        Mudd, USC, Berkeley... so it's not like we're a bunch of idiots
        at a help desk.
        \_ My experience is that people hate IT because they are highly
           dependant on them, they usually get paid manager scale salary
           or higher as staff and most sw dev and/or SA are incompetent
           assholes.  There really truly are enough real fucking losers out
           there that it makes all of us look like shit forever.  When you
           meet these people kindly ask them to find a new field and when
           they don't, it is ok to knee cap them with a bat.
           \_ In my experience, incompetent assholes are much more prevalent
              among management than among software people or sysadmins.
              The higher the position, the more likely the guy is an
              incompetent asshole. -- ilyas
              \_ ilyas, have you ever read Alan Cooper's book "The Inmates
                 Are Running The Asylum?"  I highly recommend it to anyone
                 that thinks software people _aren't_ the problem.
                 \_ I haven't read it.  But isn't that book about problems with
                    software development?  I thought this thread was more
                    about problems in computer industry corporations?  Actually,
                    I think the problem is wider than the computer industry.
                    In my more marxist days, I can't help but think there is
                    a middle management parasite class. -- ilyas
                    \_ You mean you really are a dictionary-definition "neocon"?
                        -- ulysses
                        \_ I don't know what that word means. -- ilyas
                           \_ Do you have a tough time with reading
                              comprehension? Or do you just disagree with
                              the Christian Science Monitor defintion of it?
                        http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
                              \_ If Cheney and I are both neocons, then that
                                 label is meaningless.  I disagree (or at
                                 least disagreed in 2000) with Cheney on
                                 almost everything. -- ilyas
           \_ I just heard a line from a guy I work with that you might
              appreciate.  "Sure, I'm a minority.  I'm in the minority of
              people who know what the fuck they're doing."
           \_ Well, yeah THAT's true.  You should see some of the crap IT
              people there are out there.  Clueless and unwilling to
              learn.  The worst combo in IT.
        \_ If you fail to understand the hatred of sysadmins/IT types
           by almost all workers of all types(including even blue collar
           workers now) you are probably part of the problem.  As my old
           boss from when I worked in the fishing industry put it "it's
           getting to where you can't take a shit without dealing with one
           of these pointy headed computer fuckers."  Computers are
           loathesome for most people to use, and their major human contact
           with this issue is through IT people.
        \_ my manager said there's no respect because engineering is just
           a disposable resource. I left that company 5 years ago.
           \_ Is that company floundering?  emarkp's company had an
              additude like that and it died fairly quickly.
           \_ hint: *everyone* is a disposable resource.  if you think you're
              not disposable doing whatever it is that you do then you're
              either a truly unique contributor or you're truly naive.
              *everyone* can be replaced at most companies.
        \_ Here at the lab, we get lots of respect.  Work at LLNL! -jrleek
           \_ That's what they have when you are not in listening range.
              \_ Exactly. I thought the same thing until I got promoted.
                 CS types are supposedly trained monkeys that make too
                 much money "but it's what the market will bear".
                 \_ Ummm.. have you worked at the lab, or are you talking
                    about a different place?  My management is almost
                    entriely CS guys, up until you get the the very top,
                    where it becomes Physics PhDs.  Admittedly, the
                    Physics guys don't think much of CS, but they don't
                    think much of ANYONE who isn't a Physics PhD. -jrleek
                    \_ Until they need someone to fix their Blackberry.  :-)
                       \_ Ah, but the Physics guy could fix it in theory!
                          All this implementation stuff is just
                          engineering.
                    \_ You are confirming what I said. The CS guys think
                       highly of CS, but not anyone else (physics in this
                       case). I have worked several places in academia as
                       well as industry and for the government.
2025/05/27 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/27    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/3/25-5/18 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:54639 Activity:nil
3/25    It's strange that only every other Windows version is a hit.
        NT 4.0: hit
        2000:   flop
        XP:     hit
        Vista:  flop
        7:      hit
	...
2010/8/8-9/7 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:53914 Activity:nil
8/8     Trying to make a list of interesting features languages have
        touted as this whole PL field comes around, trying to see if they
        have basis in the culture of the time: feel free to add some/dispute
        1970 C, "portability"
        1980 C++, classes, oop, iterators, streams, functors, templates
             expert systems
	...
2010/1/25-2/8 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:53664 Activity:nil
1/23    http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/library/CONTROVERSY/LAWSUITS/SEA/katzbio.txt
        Old story from 2000 but goodie. PKWare/Zip Phil Katz's death.
        \_ Now that technology is mainstream, the culture seems to lack the
           kind of bright but socially maladapted kids like Katz and Reiser
           (not to mention rms and various others) who we knew in the late
           80s/early 90s.  Where are those kids now?  -tom
	...
2010/1/12-29 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media] UID:53627 Activity:kinda low
1/12    How do I get a job NOT related to internet DNS social network cloud
        twitter GOOG EC2 amazon API ???
        \_ A CS job not related to API?
        \_ Chip design, or maybe software that does chip design. What is
           your major? How about game developer?
        \_ DNS? DNS? What era ado you live in? I agree that social network
	...
Cache (5445 bytes)
www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security. The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative? Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored dtente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s. Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences. Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s. But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill. Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants. Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.