Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Doing it wrong... (Score 3, Insightful) 253

Not necessarily. If everything you are doing is simple, then you're obviously not challenging yourself. You shouldn't have a ton of highly difficult tasks to accomplish, but a good mix of simple and hard are necessary to keep your mind sharp. (Do the hard tasks to give your brain a workout and work on the simple tasks to give your brain a rest.)

Comment Re:Success? Getting Ahead? Hidden assumptions. (Score 2) 253

Why is "success" defined as being the top in your field? Why is "reaching the top" something to be pursued?
If that's what you want, and that's what you enjoy, do it. The people I've seen get to these positions work a lot. I haven't really seen people that get to "the top" that don't. As long as you actually LIKE this, then go for it.

Some still think of success in life as climbing some ladder. If you aren't going higher, then they think you're not succeeding.

My grandmother (when she was alive) would inevitably ask me if I got a promotion at work and would express disappointment when the answer was "no." What she didn't understand, though, was that me getting promoted would mean I'd be a manager, not a web developer. This would mean having to manage people (hiring, firing, making sure people do their work when they're supposed to, dealing with company politics) instead of working with code. I love working with code, but would HATE having to do the job of a manager. Why should I "climb the corporate ladder" if it means leaving a rung that I enjoy and moving into rungs that I hate?

Comment Working Long Hours Isn't A Guarantee (Score 1) 253

Working long hours isn't a guarantee of success. My father used to go to work at 5am every morning. He'd come home at around 5pm with a stack of work. After dinner, he'd log into his office and do more work until he went to bed. On the weekends, he brought home an even larger pile and worked on it on Saturday and Sunday.

He didn't get any extra money for all of this work. When I once asked him why he did it, he answered "My boss expects this level of work from me." (Well, of course he does. You are giving him that without insisting on overtime.)

So what did all of that work get my father? He was fired when he was in his 60s. Nobody would hire him in a managerial position because they feared he'd just retire soon. Better to hire someone younger who might be with the company longer. So he retired not because he wanted to stop working, but because he couldn't find work. He's now 70, suffering from health effects, in part, from sitting at a desk all day every day for years.

When I got my current job, I insisted that my work ends when I leave the office. If a system is down during an off-hour, I'm happy to help get it up and running again, but I'm not going to be bringing projects home to work on after hours. Could I work 10 hours a day and bust my rear to do more for the company I work for? Sure, but it wouldn't get me anything and would cost me my health and time that I could spend with my family or working on projects that I want to work on (versus my day job which pays the bills).

Comment Re:Too many hours... (Score 4, Insightful) 253

In fact, at a certain point, you actually get negative productivity out of a worker. Sure, they might be producing, but their work will likely be so riddled with errors that you'll need a second or even a third person to check their work. At that point, you might as well just give the first person some time off. They'll come back rested and more productive that before. Yes, it's a short-term productivity dip, but you get long-term productivity gains. (Versus a "death march" scenario where you get gains in the very short term but longer term losses in productivity.)

Comment Re: Sure it does.... (Score 2, Insightful) 605

Maybe he didn't have a lot of books or bullets?

"Don't test in Production" still applies, though. You can't just say "well, we can't afford to have a test environment so we'll do it in Production and work out the bugs there." ALWAYS have a test environment. Work out as many bugs as you can there.

This guy's test environment was simple: A second copy of the book, a second bullet, and a melon.(Melon credit to michelcolman.) Position the melon behind the book and fire on it. If the book stops the bullet, move to production. If, much more likely, the melon suffers a gunshot "wound", then cancel any production plans because your meatbag skin won't fare better.

Comment Re:Interestingly... (Score 1) 166

From my physics classes (from way back when I was a physics major - before I hit Quantum Mechanics): Nothing prevents an object from travelling faster than the speed of light. It just can't start below light speed and accelerate beyond light speed. However, the equations do work - sort of - with speeds greater than the speed of light. "Sort of" being that it introduces an imaginary number (square root of negative one). This might mean it's impossible or it might mean something else entirely. We're not quite sure yet.

Comment Re:I hate coal (Score 2) 397

(That is, of course, leaving aside entirely what the new model does to the environment, which is godawful, but not relevant to its place as a community employer.

Except, perhaps, to point out that a "moving all the time" mining operation has no incentive to think about how their local environment changes affect the people living there. The old mining company model would have at least needed to think about how their actions affected the local environment. They might not have, but there was at least, in theory, SOME incentive of "our workers' families are getting sick because of stuff we're doing... let's change." With a moving mining operation, why would they care if they completely destroy the local environment? They'll be someone where entirely soon enough and won't need to see the effects.

Comment Re:I hate coal (Score 1) 397

It borrows greatly from one thing that The Daily Show did often with Jon Stewart that I loved. Show Politician A giving a speech saying he supports/opposes X. Next, show a clip of Politician A from not that long ago expressing a completely contrary position. They might not have been news media and they were far from unbiased, but they were great at shining a light on those hypocritical moments.

Comment Re:I hate coal (Score 1) 397

Jon Stewart always said that people using the Daily Show for their news was a sign that the news media was failing, not that the Daily Show was that informative. I'll admit that I did use it for a portion of my news consumption at the time. Many in the news media at that point, seemed unwilling to ask hard questions or point out hypocrisy (such as saying one thing and then supporting something completely opposite a year later for no good reason) lest they anger the people they were covering. Some media are ditching this, but too often you'll get a politician in front of the camera and they're given all softball questions because the interviewer doesn't want to risk the politician leaving and the news organization being banned from future interviews. IMO, the news needs to be hard hitting and hold politicians' feet to the fire. This is true of both sides of the aisle, mind you. I don't want them soft on Democrats and hard on Republicans or vice versa. It's one of the jobs of the media to shine a light on politicians if they step out of line.

Comment Re: I hate coal (Score 5, Interesting) 397

It's not so much "leave me alone" as it is "stop contradicting me, news media!" For example, there was a big mine accident of his. Even before the reports came in, with miners still trapped underground, Bob Murray proclaimed that this wasn't due to bad mining practices by his company but by an earthquake. Later, the official analysis found no evidence of an earthquake and cited bad practices by his company. Yet, he still insists it was an earthquake and is ready to sue anyone who says otherwise because, apparently, disagreeing with him (and agreeing with the official analysis of the incident) is "defamation of character."

You can't constantly go around spouting complete falsehoods and then complain when people use facts to prove you wrong. At least, you can't do this in front of a judge (yet).

Comment Re:This guy sues anyone who critizes him (Score 1) 397

Luckily, so far, it doesn't seem like the courts are willing to accept that as evidence - though they will use it to indicate a person's intent which I find to be perfectly reasonable. If you are regularly tweeting out X, it's going to be hard in court to prove that you didn't really mean X - especially if you're a popular public figure (i.e. celebrity, politician, etc).

Comment Re:This guy sues anyone who critizes him (Score 1) 397

So I'm sure Oliver's team was expecting, even looking forward to Murray's inevitable lawsuit. Indeed, Oliver pretty much openly challenged him to, and you can be sure that there will be followup segments until Murray's case is dismissed, as apparently they all have been.

Followed by a post-case-dismissed segment where they get Mr. Nutterbutter to come back out to dance with John Oliver celebrating the dismissal of the case.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Working...