On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:57:27 +0000, Invisible wrote:


> Fortunately, such behaviour is illegal. Unfortunately, laws do not apply
> to Microsoft.

Except they do apply to Microsoft, as Scott says, they paid the EU a 
bunch of money for antitrust violations, and they've been fined in the US 
for anticompetitive behaviour (and have had restrictions placed on what 
they can and cannot do as regards exclusivity arrangements with OEMs, for 
example).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:11:46 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not sure I follow....
> 
> I mean, real-life based TV/movies trial cases show, in a dramatized way,
> how things happened to some people, the abuse, the trial and the output
> of the trial. Of course is not any guarantee that things will go that
> way.

I see what you're saying, but the time compression that takes place 
really does make it an unrealistic demonstration of how the system 
works.  I spot things in Law & Order routinely that I can see (without 
any real legal training) wouldn't hold up in a real court - which means 
the outcome might be different in the real world.

I think it's a mistake to take anything on TV as representative of the 
real world.....if one wants to know how things work in the real world, 
the real world is the best reference - get some time in a courtroom as an 
observer - at least in the US, for most cases, it's perfectly legal to 
sit in and watch the proceedings as an observer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:20:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 
>> That might mean we got quality instead of quality :-)
> 
> Um.....???? ;-)
> 

Secret message, translated it means quality instead of quantity, you dig? ;)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:53:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:20:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>> 
>>> That might mean we got quality instead of quality :-)
>> 
>> Um.....???? ;-)
>> 
>> 
> Secret message, translated it means quality instead of quantity, you
> dig? ;)

I dig. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Hey, *my* knowledge isn't even useful to my *current* employer! :-P
> 
> But it could be useful to another employer :-P

Hey, if you know of such an employer who's actually hiring, let me know! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> I mean stuff like knowing which departments deal with which problems,
>> what order a customer request has to go from place to place to get stuff
>> done, things like that. Stuff that's perculiar to the particular
>> department structure that BT has chosen to implement.
> 
> That's very useful information to know if you're on the outside and need 
> help.  There are probably companies that would love to get their hands on 
> an employee who has that kind of inside knowledge.

Well, perhaps. Good luck finding 'em though.

Post a reply to this message

>> But it could be useful to another employer :-P
>
> Hey, if you know of such an employer who's actually hiring, let me know! 
> ;-)

I don't think any employer exists that is advertising the perfect job that 
exactly matches what you want to do with no mention of anything that you 
remotely dislike...

It seems to me that out of the thousands of IT jobs being advertised, you 
actually prefer the job you have at the moment.

Post a reply to this message

>>> But it could be useful to another employer :-P
>>
>> Hey, if you know of such an employer who's actually hiring, let me 
>> know! ;-)
> 
> I don't think any employer exists that is advertising the perfect job 
> that exactly matches what you want to do with no mention of anything 
> that you remotely dislike...

I agree.

My point is actually this: I know about data compression, cryptology, 
DSP, complex numbers, statistics, logic circuits, numerical integration, 
sound synthesis, differential calculus, functional programming, data 
structures and algorithms... I could go on. Now, who *the hell* is going 
to care about any of these things?

> It seems to me that out of the thousands of IT jobs being advertised, 
> you actually prefer the job you have at the moment.

Heh, if only I could *find* thousands of IT jobs! :-P

Actually, I've been thinking about this one. Maybe I'm setting my sights 
too high. Maybe I just need to accept that nobody is ever going to pay 
me to write computer programs, and start looking for boring sysadmin 
jobs instead... Those surely have drastically greater availability, and 
at least I can claim to have real, relevant commercial experience.

Post a reply to this message

> My point is actually this: I know about data compression, cryptology, DSP, 
> complex numbers, statistics, logic circuits, numerical integration, sound 
> synthesis, differential calculus, functional programming, data structures 
> and algorithms... I could go on. Now, who *the hell* is going to care 
> about any of these things?

Nobody.  95% of what I know I won't use in my job.  In another job it might 
be a different 5% that I use, but it's not going to be much more than that.

> Heh, if only I could *find* thousands of IT jobs! :-P

monster.co.uk "IT support" gives several thousand.

> Actually, I've been thinking about this one. Maybe I'm setting my sights 
> too high. Maybe I just need to accept that nobody is ever going to pay me 
> to write computer programs,

See to me you don't seem like the type that would enjoy someone pressuring 
you every day to get some code finished and out the door (that you might not 
be 100% happy with), you seem to prefer the more relaxed "hobby" attitude of 
programming (as do I).

> and start looking for boring sysadmin jobs instead... Those surely have 
> drastically greater availability, and at least I can claim to have real, 
> relevant commercial experience.

a) Almost any "boring sysadmin job" is going to pay more than you are 
getting now
b) I suspect quite a lot of sysadmin jobs would give you the opportunity to 
write programs at a more leisurely pace than if it was your main job

Post a reply to this message

>> My point is actually this: I know about data compression, cryptology, 
>> DSP, complex numbers, statistics, logic circuits, numerical 
>> integration, sound synthesis, differential calculus, functional 
>> programming, data structures and algorithms... I could go on. Now, who 
>> *the hell* is going to care about any of these things?
> 
> Nobody.  95% of what I know I won't use in my job.  In another job it 
> might be a different 5% that I use, but it's not going to be much more 
> than that.

I said "any", not "all".

It seems difficult to imagine a job which requires numerical integration 
*and* cryptology, for example. But personally, I can't imagine getting 
hired for a job where even one of the above is useful. I mean, sure, 
somebody somewhere designs ICs for a living. And somebody, somewhere 
else, designs bridges. Have *you* ever met a bridge designer??

>> Heh, if only I could *find* thousands of IT jobs! :-P
> 
> monster.co.uk "IT support" gives several thousand.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying; maybe I should look at support instead of 
programming.

>> Actually, I've been thinking about this one. Maybe I'm setting my 
>> sights too high. Maybe I just need to accept that nobody is ever going 
>> to pay me to write computer programs,
> 
> See to me you don't seem like the type that would enjoy someone 
> pressuring you every day to get some code finished and out the door 
> (that you might not be 100% happy with), you seem to prefer the more 
> relaxed "hobby" attitude of programming (as do I).

Possibly.

> a) Almost any "boring sysadmin job" is going to pay more than you are 
> getting now.

Wouldn't be hard, eh? ;-)

> b) I suspect quite a lot of sysadmin jobs would give you the opportunity 
> to write programs at a more leisurely pace than if it was your main job.

Well, my current sysadmin job does...

Post a reply to this message