Developers, IT Still Racking Up (Mostly) High Salaries
I was more interested in the wide and volatile range chosen. $100k is considered a big line to cross; to cross it twice is an immense step. It is as if we compared people making $20,000-$60,000 and found that more McDonalds workers are in that range than small business accountants--with McDonalds workers making $22k on average, and accountants making $58k.
Got it. Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. And you are correct, of course.
Developers, IT Still Racking Up (Mostly) High Salaries
I find more amusing that some software developers are making $104,000, and there are more of them than managers making $200,000, therefor there are more software developers in the $103,000-$203,000 range than there are managers in said range.
Software development, like (i guess) medicine, law, finance, etc., values expertise, skills, experience, and deep analytical ability. More so than many others where analytical ability is less valued. Besides, this leadership skills, client management skills, and project management skills are also valued, but they are equally valued in other industries as well.
That is, IMHO, we see the pattern we see. Highly skilled software developers, like highly skilled financial analysts/traders - transcend traditional salary and "perceived value" bands, and can often make far more money than even very senior counterparts in their company. However, conversely, other counterparts - i.e. software development managers with well rounded analytical and managerial skills are also very well regarded and paid accordingly.
There really is no reason why one has to feel snarky about either of these options. One can feel snobbish about individual skills (and being a non-manager), just as one can feel snooty about being high up in the corporate chain. And both positions are boorish, IMHO. Pride about individual skills is fine, and good, but do remember, there are very highly skilled craftsmen and blue collared workers and armed forces personnel by the thousands who get paid diddly squat compared to what software and financial guys get paid. We just got lucky and are enjoying the ride in the gravy train - and all because of the completely messed up way in which the market works (and assigns relative value to skills).
2014 Nobel Peace Prize Awarded To Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzay
I get Yousafzai.
What's the deal with the Indian guy Kailash? (as compared with the thousands of other charitable workers the world over?)
As an illustration, the reaction on this thread alone is 90%+ Yousafzai so far. Seems nobody gives a shit about Kailash...except the august Nobel committee.
Also Yousafzai should have won it LAST YEAR! When the said august Nobel committee passed her over for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Seems like the said august Nobel committee belatedly tried to redress the howls of political bullshitness in its selection process from last year.
The reason why this thread (along with all other threads) will be 90% focused on Malala is because - bluntly put - Malala is a lot more news-worthy than Kailash Satyarthi. On one hand, you have a young fragile good looking girl who is standing up against evil tyranny. On the other hand, you have a decidedly unsexy oldish guy who has been chugging along on his fight against child labor (which really is a fight against bonded or slave labor) for the past 3 decades.
It is a different matter that Kailash has been able to create an organization with over 80000 members and his efforts over the last couple of decades have directly resulted in hundreds of thousands of children from getting freed from the cycle of bonded labor. It is also a different matter that he was being considered for the Nobel peace prize for a decade now. But of course, there are many many people who are just putting their head down and doing their bit to improve the world. So why him, right? He didn't even have a meaningful twitter following until this news just broke. Heck, even people in his country hardly knew about him, except in the NGO (India's term for not-for-profit organizations) circles. But that is modern media for you. And by extension, our modern attention spans.
Just to be perfectly clear, I am not begrudging Malala anything. Her courage and ambition and ability to leverage the publicity she has been getting - has been extraordinary. But to both Malala and Kailash - this award is a game changer for them - in terms of publicity and monetary support. In a very real way, the Nobel Peace prize has not just become an acknowledgment of effort but a very powerful tool to further boost their efforts.
I, for one, am really happy that the award went to these two, instead of presidents and famous politicians who really didn't need the award, except as a pat in the back.
Facebook Ready To Get Into Healthcare
Second, they noticed users with chronic conditions had a tendency to search Facebook for advice.
Because when you're looking for highly accurate, trustworthy information, you think of Facebook!
And exactly how is that any different from getting help or advice from friends, support groups, or discussion forums? I know a couple of people who are already doing this. One crucial point the article summary does not mention - people are searching for advice from facebook discussion forums focused on their medical ailment.
As such, facebook is trying to encourage discussion forums - especially since they are realizing that many people are already using their site as a discussion forum.
Mangalyaan Successfully Put Into Mars Orbit
Why begrudge ISRO their moment in the spotlight?
Nobody is begrudging them their moment in the spotlight - only attempting to counterbalance and correct the hype and hyperbole that so many people (like you) are spinning.
For what it is worth, I do agree with you. I think most hype surrounding these kind of accomplishments are over the top. My only point was - SpaceX etc got far more hype for doing far less. And that is what I meant - let us not begrudge ISRO.
If you are going to say that SpaceX redefined the commercial aspect of rocketry, then ISRO too has set some new benchmarks. If you are going to argue that cost of manpower is cheap in India (hence launch costs are low) - that also ignores some crucial facts.
Cheap wages in India ensures that most of the bright talent in India routinely migrates to US universities and US organizations like NASA. It is ridiculously hard to keep good talent in the current day and age... especially if you can only pay them a fifth of what they can easily get elsewhere.
Secondly, cheap wages are only a small part of lauch costs. This is not some software they are building. I am not an expert, but I would imagine that most of the cost (most of the 75 million dollars) went into engineering, materials, and high tech parts. And material cost, especially for high end exotic stuff that goes into rockets - costs the same worldwide, including India.
At best, you can say launch cost by virtue of being in India could be, say, 50%-75% of what it would cost in US. But $75 million is a tenth of what it costs NASA. So something else was also a factor. Probably frugality in all design choices, probably even cutting corners. Mind you though, an inter-planetary launch is not a joke, and doing it successfully in the first try, despite cutting corners, is quite a feat.
It is worth understanding what ISRO did differently - what corners they cut without compromising reliability, what design philosophy they adopted - that enabled them to pull this off at this budget. I honestly think that attributing all of this to cheap labor wage is to simplistic an argument.
Mangalyaan Successfully Put Into Mars Orbit
Not to be rude (kudos ISRO regardless of all this nitpicking!), but even without hardcore information dumps from NASA, the fact remains that ISRO's attempt, coming so much later than the other three nations' first attempts, invariably benefits from the enormous pace of global scientific and technological advancement in the interim.
The first successes (after initial failures) of the US and Russian Mars programs came back in 1964 and 1971, respectively. I mean, forget the modern Internet and iPhones and all that for a moment.... personal computers as awesome as the Altair 8800 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) were still years away from being available. Can you imagine living in a world where that Altair 8800 was too badass to even exist yet, and launching a successful Mars mission? The NASA engineers in the 50's and 60's were working with caveman technology compared to what *anyone*, even ISRO, has access to today.
So I still contend: it's not very fair to gloat about ISRO making it on the first try *now* vs other first-failures, when the other first-failures were so long ago.
For sure. NASA and the Russian equivalent have been the pioneers in space exploration. No questions about that.
Nonetheless, after the Cold War fueled space race fizzled out.. and it has been a couple of decades now, hardly anyone is doing anything worthwhile as far as space exploration is concerned. You will probably admit that we have regressed more than we have made progress. With this in light, it is creditable that an underfunded organization like ISRO got this funded and successfully executed.
And let's also face the face that India is still a terribly poor country. The pursuit of science is indeed part of its value system that probably that fact alone caused ISRO to survive all these years. And ISRO has also been releasing satellites since 1975 (Aryabhata), although they only got launch capability fairly recently (1993). And admittedly, the state of the art wasn't that evolved in 1975 either.
For sure, this is only a "proof of concept" kind of a launch, but the thing is - it now sets some new benchmarks in terms of cost, capability, scale of ambition, and execution. You can push something to Mars in 75 mil. That is pretty frickin sweet. And if you are going to talk about hype and hyperbole, look at the media coverage and hype that SpaceX and Virgin Galactic has been getting. Why begrudge ISRO their moment in the spotlight?
Mangalyaan Successfully Put Into Mars Orbit
Could it be they succeeded in part because much of the previous experience?
Either way, great job doing it on their first attempt and cheapest.
Yes, but mostly no. What you say would be valid if firstly, research details (and the real nitty gritty details) would be shared freely - like open source. And to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, it is not. Yes, scientific papers and research is shared, but this is largely an engineering problem, not a scientific problem. And everyone pretty much needs to figure out the engineering challenges by themselves.
What you say would also be true (as is true in the high tech industry, for example) if sufficient people changed jobs back and forth between organizations like NASA and ISRO. To my knowledge, ISRO works on a shoestring budget and is a fairly insular work environment. Hardly any scientists or engineers quit a NASA job to join ISRO. I could be wrong though, but I would be very very surprised if there was indeed a reverse brain drain.
If anything, the brain drain consists of India's best and brightest relocating to the US after having studied in the near-free subsidized taxpayer funded colleges and universities in India. They typically go to the US to do their masters and PhD and then some of them join NASA.
ISRO is actually a fairly old and mature organization. India's scientific programs, especially in the high-tech space (and especially rocketry) suffered enormously because of high-tech blockade enforced by the US. The blockade was to the extent that even simple multi-core computers were banned from being exported to India. (That's why India tried to design its own supercomputer back in the day - the Param).
I know it may sound like I am being hyperbolic about ISRO but they actually deserve double credit for all the sh*t they had to put up with, and still managed to set ridiculous goals like this, and then achieving it, and that too on a shoestring budget and being able to retain their talent that gets paid Indian govt salaries. Trust me, that is not much. Forget about Indian pride etc. What is worth understanding is how organizations like this continue to succeed in the face of such big challenges.
Ask Slashdot: Finding a Job After Completing Computer Science Ph.D?
This is coming from someone who has been in IT for 20 years, very successfully, and has never taken any computer courses...
Get a freaking skill!!! The OP admits that the subject of the PhD is not applicable to really anything in the world. You might as well have spent 6 years of your life under a rock, because you are now the utmost expert at that tiny, inapplicable area.
Want cash and job security up the wahoo? Go pick up a CCNA book, and $500 of used Cisco gear on eBay. Get CCNA and a network admin job at a small, growing company who can't afford to pay you more than $50,000. Proceed to get your CCNP. Invest another $10,000 and two years and get CCIE. Go to "whatever the hell company you want" and make $120k+ and never worry about unemployment again.
+1. The key to long term success is being hardnosed about failures/setbacks/sub-optimal jobs, having long term focus, and putting yourself in a position where you can demonstrate your value and skills. But most of all, it is being pragmatic in the short term while being optimistic in the long term.
Having long term focus means picturing yourself on what you would consider a fulfilling job, and how exactly you see yourself and your job. Say, in 10 years. By focus, I mean take up a low paying job if necessary, as long as it is aligned to your long term goals. Good Example: Joining a company with a core focus on quality programming, but as a junior developer instead of a senior developer or lead or whatever else you might be expecting.
Bad Example: Joining the IT department (cost center) of say, a big manufacturing company. Might pay well in the short term, but will eventually be a dead-end for you.
Being hard-nosed means continue trying. Obviously, fine tuning or tweaking your strategy and where/how you are applying. By far, the easiest way to get into a company is through referrals. So can any of your buddies help you out? They get to make decent money through referral bonuses too. Also, is your location preference dragging you down? Again, in a long enough time-frame, say, 15 years from now, you will barely remember the extra 3 months (or 6 months or whatever) you put in during your initial struggling phase. So why bother getting demoralized by it now?
Lastly, don't get desperate to find a job. Your job and your company is as good as your boss. Use the interview process to figure out how much you like your future boss. If you boss isn't even interviewing you (rare, but happens), you probably don't want to work in that company to begin with.
And please remember - an extra 3-6 months of job hunting is way way better than making a mistake. Typically, from my experience, people take 2-3 years on average to fix a mistake (bad job, bad boss, bad company, bad growth opportunities).
Crucial Launches MX100 SSD At Well Under 50 Cents Per GiB
If you are looking for an even bigger performance jump, upgrade to pci-e based ssd. Works very very well for databases and for certain types of workloads. Fusion-io, Intel, and dell sell enterprise versions, but many other vendors are rapidly getting into this segment as well.
Neil Young's "Righteous" Pono Music Startup Raises $1 Million With Kickstarter
Except that in every objective test the iOS devices show a near 0 THD, nearly flat recency response and a nearly perfect dynamic range. While perhaps "technically better" is the case with the Pono, the simple, physical, physiological and demonstrable fact that 100% of humans can not hear the differences you are taking about in any testing case means the different and "bitterness" is simply snake oil. Right up there with Monster 'monitor interconnects' and speaker isolation stands.
The question to ask is - if what you say is true, then why do studios record in these higher bitrate and higher bit depth formats? If they record in analog, they will again record the music in a high bandwidth medium like reel tape.
Then the second question is - if studios record in these high bandwidth formats, why can we not listen to music in the same format as well?
A decade ago, record companies would compress the music because storage and bandwidth was expensive.
However, with current tech and internet speeds, that should not be an excuse.
Heck, video content providers are able to stream high quality videos that consume a magnitude higher levels of bandwidth and storage space. There is absolutely no excuse why audio fidelity of source music should be needlessly compressed or butchered nowadays. And I really don't care if it is needless data. All I am asking is to give me the same file that the studio uses.
Neil Young's "Righteous" Pono Music Startup Raises $1 Million With Kickstarter
HDtracks, eClassical, Linn, Bandcamp. All carry 24-bit, high resolution audio.
This expands the ecosystem; it doesn't create it.
Most of these online shops are not really an ecosystem. And that is really the problem.
Everyone keeps getting into the endless audiophile debates. You have one camp that disses everything that has the audiophile and calls it snake oil. Then you have the audiophiles that go into objective vs subjectives debates, and what not. Then you have the tech folks (and we have plenty) who want to correct everyone else and go into Nyquist/Shannon, signal processing, even harmonics, DAC internals, ESS Sabre chips, oversampling, and what not.
The real tragedy in all this is that we *still* don't have a good "ecosystem" that lets people download or stream studio quality music *with enough choice*, and be able to play back the music with sufficient fidelity that respects the quality of the source music.
This doesn't exist. Period. Instead you have this massively screwed up system where you either have esoteric knowledge of audio playback, audio components, internal workings, be able to differentiate between various capacitor types, analog circuitry, DAC chips, speaker drivers. Then be able to differentiate bullshit from fact, spend a ton of money with failed experiments swapping out audio components. Even then, the main battle remains. Hunt around or ask around for source music that is well mastered or well recorded. And guess what - most of the music will not even be in the genre you like or artists you like. Then figure out how/where you can legally download or purchase this music.
So all power to Pono and Neil Young's initiative if they are truly able to pull off this ecosystem. If they can let people access and listen to studio quality music and listen to it "at near studio quality" - that is nothing short of a revolution.
Who's On WhatsApp, and Why?
I find it funny that so many people like you are jumping up and down trying to come up with reasons why whatsapp sucks. Have you even used the app for starters? Why don't you try and figure out why the damn thing is so popular instead? As it is, Slashdot seems to be filled with posters who want to show their cleverness and prove why anything innovative is either done wrong, or how someone else has done something vaguely similar, or why it should never have been built in the first place.
At least greybeards like you don't need to get into this as well.
Whatsapp is successful because it is by far the best user experience you can find in any app. It does not require a login, is as lightweight as it gets, works very very well even in dog slow internet connections or in underpowered phones or even old feature phones, and messages get sent super fast and very reliably. It allows you to share text, images, and videos to a single person or to a group of people.
It just works. Very very well. It is the Google of messaging. From what I hear, the developers focus more on obsessing on the minutest of details and making sure any new feature works reliably, instead of getting into a rat race of introducing a new feature every sprint or every month. And that is what the competition does. They make creaky bloated software, and try to fix lack of usage by making their software even more creaky by introducing more features.
It is ironic that except for search and maybe email, even the mighty Google does not get this simple concept. Try using their chat, hangout, plus apps for example. The user experience is pathetic.
Court Says Craigslist Sperm Donor Must Pay Child Support
You are missing the fact that it is good advice to steer clear of single mothers.
Does your wife know you're trolling slashdot with this account these days? :)
Would she not be happy that her husband is trying to steer clear of single mothers?
Ask Slashdot: How To Reimagine a Library?
Do you read before you go to sleep?
Do you read on a train or a bus?
Do you read a few pages at a time?
Do you like to read a story end to end in one sitting?
Do you carry your book in a handbag or a manpurse?
Do you carry your book in your pocket?
Maybe some of what I said may not make sense.
However, we need to think deeper about why reading books are becoming more and more unpopular. We also need to think deeper as to why libraries are becoming more unpopular or are trying to do other things (besides being a place where people can read and borrow books).
Don't be so quick to judge and say "that makes no sense". I wasn't trying to be prescriptive in terms of saying exactly how we should redesign libraries. However, I do find it surprising that so little effort is made to keep evolving books and libraries according to how and why and when people are reading books. Books and libraries should fit into people's lifestyles, not the other way around. Yes, sure e-book lending etc has taken off, and libraries have become more of social centers, but that is only a couple of steps in this direction.
For example, I have often found it an utter shame when I have found myself lugging a book in my hand when it will not fit in my pocket, especially on crowded trains and buses. I have also often been frustrated when I have stayed up late consecutively for several nights and finished 2 parts of a trilogy only to discover that the third part hasn't even been published yet.
Ask Slashdot: How To Reimagine a Library?
Libraries are so often categorized on Victorian assumptions that we are there to do serious stuff - academic pursuits, seeking knowledge, a scholarship, research and such claptrap. Nobody feels, emotes, thinks, imagines, or dreams that way. And nobody reads books that way either.
Books should be categorized on emotions, imagination, our interests and passions, our quirks, our pursuits and hobbies. Books should also be categorized on *how* we read a book, not always on *what* we read.
I really don't subscribe to the standard answers of finding technology answers to these kind of problems. Technology only helps us solve some problems better. But we first need to know what the problem is, and how we want to solve it in the first place.
The problem is that libraries are not aligned with how people think and feel. Libraries are instead aligned with how a certain people once thought that people should think and feel. Which is bollocks.
Coca-Cola Reserves a Massive Range of MAC Addresses
On a slightly related note, there is a very nice Microsoft Research paper on password theft and bank fraud, and who actually gets affected.
I will admit that most of what I actually thought of this subject was quite wrong.
Justine Sacco, Internet Justice, and the Dangers of a Righteous Mob
People called foxes vermin and hunted them with a pack of dogs.
Now people call other people names and hunt them with a pack of other humans.
Aside from that, the basic drive is the same. It's a relic from our caveman days, so far as I'm concerned.
Forming packs and hunting people is old sport too. There's a reason they call this activity a witch-hunt.
Along with the pack violence mentality that persists in us humans, what amazes me is our capacity for double standards.
There's a special sort of viciousness that we reserve for others, when we observe a trait in them - that we despise in ourselves.
Ask Slashdot: Application Security Non-existent, Boss Doesn't Care. What To Do?
Indeed. However good you document the lack of progress and the disinterest of the managers, when something happens it will be your fault and you will have a shitload of problems. Leave ASAP.
Yes, agree 100%. Leave ASAP.
The other way to think about this is - any organization is only as good as your boss. If she or he is is veritable shite, the organization is as well. You are not only wasting your time, you are doing the equivalent of hanging out with a bunch of dicey "friends" who might go do something illegal when they are tanked up.
Ask Slashdot: How Do I Convince Management To Hire More IT Staff?
When the CEO comes in and rambles about printers not working - then let him choose between printer and a penalty for not meeting deadline for project X.
What I've learned in my years in IT (about 12 total, 10 of those as an IT manager) is that you never go to a manager with only a problem. You go in with a problem and at least 3 well thought-out solutions. Waiting until some other shit hits the fan will only put you in a bad light and will show you are passive aggressive. Instead, give him your own hard numbers. Document the troubles and impacts, tell him how much of each persons average work week is spent on help desk calls and how late that made some big project X. Tell him how much time your programmers are spending helping other tasks. Then tell him how much time you put in in an average work week, and how much you would need to get everything done (i.e. if you're working over 50, that's grounds for 1/4 person. If instead you need over 50 to get the job done on time, ditto).
As a manager, it's your job to take care of your folks. Have a meeting with them and get their hard numbers, %time doing things, how late they anticipate things being, how many hours they work, etc... Then go in to the boss and tell him those facts and three possible solutions (for example): 1) We need X more bodies to do this and that. 2) We focus on the big projects and let help desk issues slip and miss deadlines or 3) We miss out on deadlines and opportunities because we have N hours per week dedicated to help desk work, when we should have Y.
Not contradicting you but making a tangential point. The main problem with your line of thinking is that you still think like an "IT Manager" or any first line manager. I've seen that in many cases, it is worthwhile to think like an entrepreneur instead.
The main problem is that IT has become perceived as a background problem or a fixed cost. Like electricity or water supply. We're nothing but glorified plumbers as far as senior management is concerned.
You cannot fix this by presenting an IT Manager type solution. They would perceive it the same way you would if your plumber told you about the three different ways he would solve your basement leak problem. While you would be interested in getting it fixed and getting it fixed "right" in a reasonable price, you really don't give a crap for the details or even how it gets done and with how many people.
You fix this by changing their mentality. Get them to believe that IT doesn't come for free (as a fixed cost on the balance sheet), and is not a cost center. Get them to believe that IT is really a "pay as you go" kind of service or capability. Get them to believe that IT is a profit center in itself. That it is an independent entity.
Infosys or IBM or Accenture is your competition. So treat them as such instead of just bitching about them in general (you didn't say that, just saying in general). You need to either match their cost or need to differentiate yourself (and your IT team) as a crack high quality and super reliable team.
I admit this stuff is easy to say, and much harder to do. But this is how it should be done, IMHO.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that the real skill a good IT or software manager needs, at least in these types of roles, is really a good understanding of how finance works in an organization. Stuff like charge-back, reconciliation. I mean, if we were an independent contractor team handling a company's IT, this is exactly what we would be concerned with. Work is fine, but we and our organization needs to get paid correctly and on time.
I'm only talking about organizations where IT is a sub-organization. Of course, in pure IT shops or software development or software product shops, the dev team IS the profit center. So the point becomes moot.
AMD A10 Kaveri APU Details Emerge, Combining Steamroller and Graphics Core Next
Apologies for the double post. The submit button didn't respond for several seconds so I clicked it again. In fact, I think I did it thrice.