Hate em. I am a sysadmin not a developer, but I always do some light to heavy dev in support of my environment. In my experience if you are really that good you can let the ideas and knowledge flow. Only half of what you say will sink in and that's only if the listener has the conceptual framework to remember the facts in context.
If they hired the right guy (or gal), he may actually be able to keep up. This will be obvious when you are peppered with smart contextual questions. Rejoice! Everybody is different, but there is a good shot you have an ally for life. Build enough of these and everybody will call you first for the interesting stuff.
It does sound like you have a bigger problem. Sounds like your client does not realize what an open ended thing they are asking you to do. If they do, can't hurt to clarify. If they don't get it, ask them what they are willing to pay for. Look at the longevity of training one guy vs improving docs. Consider the training and intelligence of the individual. You may need to spend ALOT of time with him. Consider the medium. Email is more defensible and cheaper than phone help, which is cheaper than in person visists, which is cheaper than full time in person training. Offer some cheap email responses for a period of time. That helps you to keep track of how well or badly this fellow is doing. Also ask them how you proceed if you have difficulty communicating with him.
Once you and your client knows what they actually want from you it won't be uncomfortable, perhaps it will even be fun. You don't really know something until you teach it.
Sweeds you will be issued sweat shorts, 'nutrition' bars, and boxed sets of 'The Kardashians' to help indoctrinate you.
There are many rules, too many to read, but the TV 'news' will help guide you as to which ones are actually being enforced.
I've been a LUG president for almost the same time frame and I agree. We've won, and yet, there are new rules and new fights.
Your ability to make technology reflect the needs of people is your best gift. You are a cat herding Jedi master.
Don't worry, sooner or later you'll get an itch and doubtlessly end up scratching it for all of us.
Bottom line: It's either morally OK for a group of you have not met to decide see you naked no matter how you are dressed, or it isn't. If it is we should all get over it. If not, we have to throw a important security tool in the dust bin.
People are way to afraid of these two things. Now they must choose. LOL.
Not that I think people are mature enough to handle this, but that's exactly my point. Can't wait for the first time a security official says about an attack, 'this could have been prevented by the body scanner' and he is right.
LOL bwaaaa haha Moo HA HA. Face your fears pushy jerks!
Personally I am fine with these. I don't care who appears naked on the screen, myself included. I won't loose my mind if attractive woman is scanned or if an unattractive man is either. I consider that part of being a grown up.
People are way too uptight about both their sexuality and their 'security.' This is best thing that could happen to American hypocrisy. IMO this IS an effective technique, but how much do you REALLY care. LOL.
That why it's not just a an anonymous BBS. If someone were to try to post say the blueprint and guard shifts at a nuclear generator, it will be stopped. That is something that has little civic interest but enormous defense interest.
Problem is to many feds try to act like 'defense' is a get out of jail free card for EVERYTHING. Any waste. Any pet project. Any friend in need. How often this happens may never be known, but at least we can keep the scammers looking over their shoulder. If they get too arrogant, they disgust a report and BAM, busted.
This is totally awesome. I am going to run out and join the authors guild immediately. They will protect me from my vicious double dipping fans!!!
Creative commons has an interesting problem. How do you allow translation of an open work, without allowing someone to undermine the original text through dubious translation? In other words allow other language translations, but not "modify." It looks like there is a project to set up a consensus on translation. A system by which translations would be performed by the same process from work to work.
So I wonder, isn't an automatically generated audio reading, just another translation? Is spoken language to text or vise versa a translation, or is it literally the same text? How about other languages? Dialects?
If all translations are really just a complex substitution problem that can be performed by the reader, does it benefit society to pay for services they didn't receive for a product they already paid for?
Link to Original Source