Until you develop a mental health problem, then it most definitely is everyone else's business.

That's bullshit. Having a mental health problem doesn't automatically mean that a person isn't capable of responsibly owning a firearm.

You need to learn some critical thinking skills and to develop some intellectual honesty.

Regards,

dj

I can tell you that you don't point a loaded gun at people EVER

Please, do give me other examples if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

You point a loaded gun at people when you intend to shoot them, otherwise you do not.

Any questions?

Regards,

Hi,

How Should Tech Conferences Embrace Diversity?

Here's an easy answer: Add "Anyone interested is welcome".

There you go.

"Embrace Diversity?" A conference of any kind is targeted to its topic(s), first, as well it should be.I don't see that including non-relevant matters such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else should have ANY bearing upon it.

Embrace the conference's subject matter, and welcome anyone that chooses to attend.

Regards,

dj

Witch hunts are great fun. We should all get on-board and burn this guy.

That's a waste of a perfectly good witch. Sure, he might keep you warm for a few hours, but if you build a bridge out of him, you'll get years of use out of him!

Regards,

dj

Hi,

I'm going to get pounded for this post, but that's OK - this is a subject with which I am familiar, and I'd like to share my perspective nonetheless.

I have always felt that Cisco had the same sort of following as Novell. Senior IT people certified up the wazoo yet unable to explain to me why Cisco was so much better.

Your current "+5 Insightful" upmods notwithstanding, the fact that you need someone else to explain this to you tells me that, by your own admission, you don't have the knowledge required to make these decisions yourself. That alone makes me wonder why your post got upmodded... but, this is Slashdot in the 21st century, so what can you do, right?

If you had the requisite knowledge, I imagine that you'd be posting from that viewpoint, e.g. "I evaluated Cisco's offerings for my company, and after comparing them to other vendors, decided that they weren't worth the premium price for us." Or something similar, rather than stating: "I have always felt that"... this isn't something subject to feelings. IT/MIS is a technical profession, and cost/benefit analysis with regards to network and computer infrastructure is something that is done every day in the real world, though apparently not by you.

The bits that leak out of big data people like Facebook and Google seem pretty lacking in the big names. I don't see gear from HP, IBM, Dell, Cisco, etc. What I do see is white boxish or custom gear that they seem perfectly happy with.

What you don't appear to understand is that Googles and the Facebooks of the world are basically large enough to be OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) in their own right, and have the money and technical resources to pursue that path, and so your attempt to apply their approach to this particular case is flawed. Certainly CSU is large, but they aren't "Google large", when it comes to network infrastructure and servers, and you'll note that they went with a name-brand vendor, rather than rolling their own solution, which makes your statement doubly inane.

Just a guess

You appear to be good at that.

but my bet

What bet? How much? What are the terms? I'm sorry to sound confrontational, but you do realize that such is a null statement? It costs you nothing to say, and there's no penalty if you're wrong. Why not replace it with something more honest, such as "I think that", or, better, in your case: "I believe that"?

much of the business that big old companies like Cisco come from single skill IT people combined with kick ass sales people.

Actually, much of Cisco's success, and sales, come from corporations with mission-critical networks, regardless of scale. They pay a premium for Cisco's hardware, and pay for SmartNet contracts, to ensure their network operations. This may not be worth it to you, but, I have to tell you, their support and logistics when it comes to SmartNet are amazing, and "4 hour parts on site"? The last time I opened a Cisco TAC case for a device so covered, I had a callback in 10 minutes from the person assigned to the case, parts dispatch was under an hour, and the longest delay was on our side: The person that was on-call to open the office (It was a Sunday) didn't answer her cell on the first try, and I left a message with the engineer's cell number, and called him back and gave him her number so he could call her directly to arrange to meet at the office. Once he got onsite, I emailed the backup copy of the router config to him, and he took care of the rest.

Total time was just over three hours, and the following Monday morning everyone came to work and the network was working.

THAT, in my opinion, is worth paying for, when needed, as it was in this case: That office is in Washington State and I'm in New York State.

Now, many companies don't need that, and that's fine. And, based just on the numbers, it does appear that someone at Cisco screwed up badly in this case with regards to the quote: Their loss, and I'm sure they'll fix it in the future.

You, on the other hand, are dismissing them simply on the basis of this incident, because of the money, and because of your "feeling" that Cisco is overpriced in all cases, reinforced by this incident.

Salespeople who sell to upper management not to the non Cisco IT people who might fact check.

Well, you're wrong again, at least in our case. All network/computer purchases at our company go through MIS, first, and believe me, cost is a huge concern. All recommendations have to be approved by our Director, and if the amounts are high enough, they have to be approved by our Executive Vice President, and then again by the CFO and CEO.

Regards,

dj

She said, "Yeah, why not? He deserved it, burning his dog like that."

I agree with your girlfriend and would like to subscribe to her newsletter.

Hi,

Sorry, but "social media", et al? Yet another venue for manipulation, especially Facebook.

Consider the latter: It's primary focus is social. This is by no means a bad thing: Human beings are social creatures, and Facebook is a great place for social interaction [1].

However, social interaction doesn't necessarily translate to "informed political awareness" [2].

My impression is this: Yes, the campaign managers are savvy about social networking, yes, they will use this, and, given the nature of social networking, properly manipulated? They will not only get more people to vote (a good thing, in general), but they will get more people to vote the way they want, so long as they get enough presence... if they look good to "someone" on Facebook? Well, odds are they're going to look good to that someone's friends, too, right, wrong or indifferent.

In many ways, leveraging Facebook and other social networking sites is the best way for any politician to go now: The cost to do so is next to nothing [3] and the impact is not only nation-wide, it's also self-selecting and self-perpetuating.

And, cynically? Where else are you going to find more "warm bodies" with so little effort?

Regards,

dj

Notes:

[1] Or so I've been told. I'm proud to admit that I don't have, nor ever will have, a Facebook account, nor accounts on similar services. And no, that doesn't mean that I don't have friends, it just means that I don't have any Facebook friends.

[2] Hell, I'd argue the contrary: People gathering together socially for extended periods of time tend to have similar views in most things, and so their political views will be similar and fairly immutable. So, they're self-selecting, and easily targeted and leveraged.

[3] After all, Facebook doesn't charge for an account... so, it's every politician's campaign manager's wet dream: Free, unfettered access to an enormous number of voters, who will also, potentially, recruit their friends, family, etc.? Hell, from their perspective, Facebook is an ocean, and its members are chum that willingly gather together to be eaten.

And of course, "the Obama" is a Freudian slip *grin*.

Regards,

dj

You are not counting GM?

Sadly, the Obama Administration does not considering Game Mastering in their employment statistics.

That should be: "Sadly, the Obama does not consider Game Mastering in their employment statistics."... it started out as "is not considering", and I messed up the editing.

Regards,

dj

You are not counting GM?

Sadly, the Obama Administration does not considering Game Mastering in their employment statistics.

Purposely obtusely yours,

dj