I double-majored in criminal justice and psychology - my true intention was to go into law enforcement but I had always been interested in computers and technology. The second semester of my freshman year I worked for the university doing network and IT support for students in the dorms. That work experience opened my eyes and I decided to pursue a career in IT. I started out by working for a local phone company to get some soft skills, then slowly moved up to being a helpdesk support person, then helpdesk manager, then into server and network administration.
It is true that most companies look at work experience and not degrees - at least that has been my perception on both sides of the interview table. Many of the good IT folks I work with have degrees in accounting, business, and marketing. Some companies, though won't hire programmers unless they have demonstrable experience in the languages they need.
Essentially I would just make sure you get hands-on experience or take a few classes at a local community college in whatever area of IT interests you. Even a certificate goes to show that you're serious about educating yourself and that you can do the job.
...services but refuse to follow-through after the fact?
I am the network admin/server admin/helpdesk manager for a small online-based college (not private but part of a state system). Our department is moving to a new building in February or March so, of course, I wanted to order a single server to provide file, print, antivirus, WSUS, DHCP, and other necessary services for our office. We are well-positioned to grow in the next five years (which is our lease period for the new place) so a single server should be sufficient while allowing for additional capacity later on.
Of course, our central IT department insists that they will provide these services to us. Our new director is onboard with this (anything to save a few bucks I guess) despite my repeated warnings and lamentations of the lack of support and follow-through that central IT has always had. This is the same central IT who gives us 6 hours of notice before a 20 minute non-emergency web outage in the middle fo the week. This may not seem like much but when you are completely online-based AND registration is in full swing the outage is less than ideal. This is the same central IT that takes 4 hours to make a permission change on a share that only a few of us access (negating the need for change management). This is the very same central IT who lost an entire communications server because the backups were corrupt and they had it configured to run RAID 0 on two drives. And yes, this was a production server.
So earlier this week when I put in my request to have access for WSUS, DHCP, etc. with a month and a half of lead time for them to figure things out I was told that they have several high-priority projects that they are working on now and cannot do this until February 1st.
I am compiling a list of issues already but I am not looking forward to the stares and glances I'll get from my coworkers when the server goes down or "maintenance" is conducted without warning at 2:30 on a Tuesday afternoon. Our CIO can't manage to extract herself from a paper bag let alone an entire IT shop. The next few months are really going to be quite painful methinks.
I'm just sick and tired of the big IT departments that insist on providing services but no/slow support. All it is for them is a control issue and it drives me nuts. I think the last straw was when the tech ops director told my boss that "anyone in [citking's] position would ask for one just to have as a toy." This is why I sometimes hate my job.
If another Wikipedia editor behaved in a blatantly uncivil manner after your attempt to apply BRD, why didn't you take the issue to one of Wikipedia's numerous options for dispute resolution?
Probably because I was 1) unaware of that process and 2) thinking that a simple edit shouldn't necessarily require an appeals process. Even now that I am aware of it the time commitment behind adding any sort of information to an article (add & cite, have it reverted, appeal, talk, discuss more, re-edit, reverted again, repeat ad nauseum) is just too great now. I don't need Wikipedia that much and if that community is going to be resistant to change then so be it.
My guess was that this was done under my IP address (before I had my account and before one was required to edit). I'm not sure I can find the exact edit.
All the edit was was to list him as the coach of the year after the First Superbowl *I think*. It was some fact like that, a fact with a source, and it was reverted. Whether or not I can find the exact edit/revert the fact of the matter stands that many people, including myself, have had issues with vengeful editors. Hell, I bet I could go into 5 articles with a misspelling, correct the misspelling, and at least 1 will get reverted. I'm at work now or else I would try this as a social experiment.
With the problems I've had in the past I don't know if this is going to be nearly enough. Wikipedia's problems lies in the fact that many, if not most, of their long-time editors consider themselves the end-all be-all of Wikipedia. I've contributed to several pages, cited properly, and still get reverted because someone disagrees with the page for reasons other than factual accuracy. For example, when editing an article about Vince Lombardi and citing sources the changes were reverted for no given reason. When I asked why I was reverted I was not given a reasonable answer (and was trolled in the process). So I stopped contributing. I'm now content to let the self-appointed elites run the site.
That's the other reason I will never give a red cent to Wikipedia. So long as the Wikipedia mafia of editors continue to run things the way that they do I think the site will suffer and eventually wither out as it's last gasp of neutrality and openness disappear behind the power-hungry editors who run the site the way that they want to run it. If Jimmy wants Wikipedia to succeed he'll start with the cadre of idiots who currently run the place.
I bet Ms. Janet Napolitano is wet just hearing about this*.
I'm disappointed that this article is not from the Onion. Can no one realize that 9/11 was just a fluke and the likelihood of it happening again that way is astronomical (I know this is in Australia but I can almost guarantee that all heightened security is a direct result of 9/11, the British train bomb, and other random events)? Let's get rid of the security theater we have in place now and just live because life is pretty much bad enough as it is without having to invent reasons to make it even more miserable.
I'd rather die on a hijacked plane than have to undergo full body cavity searches - at least my wife will be richer that way.
*No need to thank me for that visual.
You didn't have to tell us you where a bad programmer, the VB code was a big enough clue~
Yeah, I know, I know. That's why I went into support and eventually network administration. I know when to take the high road!
Hope the person(s) who wrote that algorithm aren't writing nuclear reactor code. I'll admit though that I'm a bad programmer too. Back when I did write code I used such gems as DIM TotalSales AS INTEGER. That didn't work so well.
The trolls are the ones who say that we're turning into Cuba, trains are for idiots, and high-speed only exists at 149 MPH+. I'll admit readily that a train between Madison and Milwaukee is a great idea. Yes, the up-front costs will be high and it'll be a few years before it's going due to infrastructure changes but it's a great idea. The trolls are just mad because, well, they have nothing better to argue at the moment IMHO.
My local newspaper site, madison.com , is pretty new to comments. They disable them on crime stories I've noticed but anything doing with politics, the proposed high-speed rail service between Madison and Milwaukee, or state workers will attract trolls by the dozen. It makes reading the news stories like taking a walk through Craigslist's Rants and Raves section. When it turns to
The concept of paying to comment seems a little too far though. That said, I'm all for having to publish your real name, address, phone number, and a JPEG when leaving a comment on a news site. Anonymity breeds stupidity and the best way to combat trolls is to force them to stand by their comments. Slashdot's system works, and I've seen other half-assed attempts to mimic it, but in the end people just need to be held responsible for their own actions.
In fact, I'll start. My name is Jay and yes, I've trolled before. I try very, very hard not to do it now and I've said things in online forums that'd I'd never say to someone's face. I'd promise not to do it again but the dumb republicans are still out there and need to be told what's what.
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.