Go talk to the Product Manger? Don't have a product manager? Who is responsible for talking to customers, prioritising features, and drawing up the product roadmap? This is the person you need to talk to.

Don't have product manger? As someone has said, find a new job. Developers by their nature spend most of their time looking at code, someone needs to spend most of their time talking to customers.

I would say the vast majority of Australian Muslims are horrified how this turned out, if only because it makes their lives so much harder. Most of them want to get on with their jobs and raise their families somewhere safe.

#illridewithyou

It depends on your definition of a crime.

Staging a sit-in prayer meeting in Julie Bishop's office is arguably a crime, yet what they were protesting about is apparently not.

        http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-n...

If "Christians" are capable of sitting on both sites of the immigration debate, why can't Muslems.

Of course, the obvious thing to point our are groups like the LRA, or those operating in the Central African Republic. You will probably be quick to deny that these people are Christians, in just the same way many Australian Muslims are saying the Martin Pl The siege is un-Islamic.

Not news for 2 reasons

    1) standard practice to re-screen if someone has bypassed screening

    2) this has happened several times before (see links below)

The only thing that made this relevant for slashdot was the presence of an iPad (Ah Ha! A technology angle!). That said, the exit from T3 isn't that secure, but it is a domestic terminal. The domestic terminals use pretty standard x-ray of belongings and a metal detector. In other words, just like getting into an office building in downtown New York. The security is nothing like the international terminals which are about the same level as at US airports.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
  http://www.theaustralian.com.a...

Ignoring the joke answers this is probably the best answer here.

We work in support services - unless you are an IT service provider you aren't part of the business that makes money. You support the business, but you aren't the business. Think about all those other support functions, HR, finance, legal, office facilities - they are all needed too but I don't often hear them asking to be appreciated by management.

To the OP - What is your objective? You say you want management to "appreciate the hard work that an IT department does?" - but why?

    * Job security?
    * Pay/conditions?
    * To make yourself feel good?

Turn the question around and ask "What does management appreciate?" - Face it, you aren't going to change your your boss but you can change the way you communicate, or better still, change the way you do things.

Do they value cost control? Show how you did your job on a budget - grab some analyst papers and show how you do it cheaper then comparable industry segments. If you start reporting on this then it will also drive yourself to manage costs well, so you should be able to report on cost savings and improvements. Be honest about who YOUR competitors are - your should be benchmarking yourself against outsourcers and "cloud" vendors. Again, this drive behaviour, make the cost comparison and deliver what management really wants.

If you have management that hates downtime, but you have trouble showing the hard work you do to maintain that - rethink what you are doing. You aren't keeping the systems up, you are addressing things that could go wrong. Do you maintain an operational risk matrix? Start formally recording and tracking what could go wrong, use it to focus you work appropriately and summarise this to management to demonstrate all the monsters under the bed you are chasing out that they never see. It is also a great way to get funding if you report on something in the risk matrix for 18 month as a future issue.. You have the opportunity to forecast things like hardware refreshes and forced software upgrades to management - presented in terms that are meaningful to them (e.g. "medium risks of downtime costing >$250,000 revenue can be resolved for $75,000") and you are able to report on all the risks you have removed? Are you working on things that aren't in the risk matrix? Why? Either get it on the risk matrix, start reporting it as project work (that someone else can justify the value of) or stop doing it.

Excuse the cynicism, but while it is possible that you are doing a great job you management would love if they knew, the fact you are asking the question highlights that you don't understand what senior management values. If you don't understand, how do you know you really are doing a valuable job? Sure you are working hard, but that isn't the same. I have seen technically competent hardworking people loose their jobs to outsourcers because they weren't delivering what senior management expected. Unless you are prepared to re-think your priorities to you are not going to get the results you want.

You thought wrong:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2011/05/the_outrage_of_the_week.html

Sheila Kaplan has been on this since federal child provacy laws were relaxed to permit it in 2011. She launched Education New York's National Opt-out Campaign to alert parents to their rights under FERPA to restrict third-party access to their children's information and encourage them to review their school's annual FERPA notification at the beginning of the
school year. Here's her website:
http://www.educationnewyork.com/about.html

and a parent information page
http://educationnewyork.com/optoutnow

Stripped of the invective, AC is 100% correct - did you actually READ any of the articles above?

  In either story?

  The fact that the Gates Foundation can do more-or-less whatever it wants (Karl Rove is an even more egregious example) and deduct that from their taxes is a minor problem. The real problem is that they're using their combination of leveraged money and free P.R. from fools like you to take over vast quantities of [b]our tax dollars[/b] and redirect that money into their coffers and the coffers of their allies like Pearson Education, Murdoch, etc.

This is cool, but as I read it here (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), it's no substitute for doing a real experiment. I'm going to launch into a long explanatory diatribe - models like this one can be VERY useful for hypothesis generation, or to try and understand seemingly disconnected results that (very often) arise in a biological experiment. They are especially useful when you have some hypothesis/theory of how a complex system is governed and you need to generate some prediction which you can experimentally test based on your theory.

  But not a substitute for the real experiment, no way no how. Why? Because living things aren't designed, and they don't respect your modularity, abstract data typing, etc. etc.

  For example, suppose your bacterium starts making some huge amount of a membrane protein (a common thing you do in the lab, for reasons outside the scope of this example). What's going to happen?

  Well, that protein is going to try and fold up in the membrane, but as you make more and more of it, the protein is going to fail to get there. Other proteins destined for the membrane are going to experience the same problem. Are you going to update every single module that contains something membrane bound, to reflect this? As they accumulate in the membrane, the membrane curvature is going to change, and this in turn is going to change the relative concentrations of various lipids on each leaf of the membrane, which alters the chemistry of everything that interacts with the membrane in any way (a whole bunch more modules.)

  Even if you have those effects covered, they're going to have indirect (and non-linear) effects on the concentration of various ions in the cytosol (all of which, just for starters, interact with the inner membrane with different affinities), the excess protein is going to start accumulating in inclusion bodies which are going to start taking up physical space inside the cell. These two changes alter the likelihood of interaction and the energy of interaction of every single other thing going on in the cell (!). So good luck with that.

  That's just one example. The same thing would happen if you sheared the DNA, or heat shocked the cell, or put the cell in an environment of rapidly changing nutrient concentrations. To put all that in CS terms - the actual cell isn't object oriented, there's all sorts of cross-talk between the different components (because they're physical objects in a little tiny soap bubble, they're bumping into each other) and no abstraction layer or anything of that kind.

  To be quite honest, I am of the opinion that a living cell is an irreducible system, and the only way you'd get a real substitute for experiments on actual cells would be JUST MAYBE if you ran a molecular dynamics simulation on all 10^14 or so atoms; and if you did so with a much better physics engine than we have now.

There are a lot of reasons to be physically present at a "brick and mortar" university with an instsructor in the room with you.

  To the extent that universities want to break from this model, it isn't about education at all. It isn't even about making an education cheaper; it's about extracting money from suckers.

  So, good for Khan Academy for doing what they're doing and giving it away for free. All the bottom feeders (including Bill Gates) who want to charge money for this stuff have nothing useful to offer and are just trying to game the system in one or another way for a buck.

The pressure to do this is NOT coming from the federal government, it's coming from the companies that sell the cloud services!

  So instead of having the federal government just maintain an emergency backup infrastructure itself, these private companies (Amazon etc.) WANT the federal government to buy electronic services from them! And the feds come back and say, "well, in order to make that workable we'd need guaranteed access in an emergency and bleah-de-bleah." Privatization of emergency services is an unmitigated disaster and we just shouldn't do it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/aug/30/comment.hurricanekatrina

  The obvious solution is: How about No? But it's the federal government that needs to say that to the cloud-computing vendors, not the other way around!

You're accusing her of doing a hatchet job, but you're clearly not reading any of the links, which discuss the details of the partnerships extensively.

  Your accusation - that she has a "conspiracy theory" *is* a hatchet job. What makes it a conspiracy theory? None of this is particularly secret; these people don't all have to be in the room at once, plotting. The accusation is that the Gates foundation's supposed charity does significant harm, based on an ideological commitment to corporatism, and she's assembled scads of material to document that assertion.

  If you can't see anything but paranoia, that's something that you're reading into it, not a criticism of the substance; which, again, you appear not to have even read.

  The way that the trust is organized doesn't protect from conflict of interest; and that's a concern. But the real issue is the awful things they enduce other charitable actors to do with other-people's-money.

Oh, please, that's just complete bullshit.

  I'm assuming you didn't actually read the article? Perhaps you read the careful research in the primary source:
http://www.ghwatch.org/sites/www.ghwatch.org/files/D3_0.pdf

  Pharmaceutical companies make third world dictatorships look like Finland.

No, that's not what it says; in fact, that is the OPPOSITE of what it says.

  STAKEHOLDERS (not Shareholders) is occupy-wallstreet-speak for the people who have some vested interest in the outcome - employees, customers, people in malaria-infested countries, doctors, etc.

  Third world DOCTORS - the recipients of Bill's so-called generosity - are the ones complaining.