Classic Gerald Weinberg Essay Reprinted

danielread writes "Programmer abuse has been a popular topic recently, especially within the gaming industry. However, excessive overtime and overwork are not new problems for software professionals. Twenty years ago, acclaimed author Gerald Weinberg wrote an essay called 'Personal Chemistry and the Healthy Body,' which is as relevant for programmers today as it was two decades ago. Given this topic's recent resurgence, Mr. Weinberg was generous enough to let developer.* Magazine reprint this classic essay."

Comments

I read it...

[Icarus1919]

I read the essay, but I couldn't find the passage where it talks about how essential caffeine is to programming. I think I'm going to have to go back and look harder...

Re:I read it...

[caino59]

you're right...

no coffee, mountain dew, jolt, etc...

just how credible can this article be...?

Re:I read it...

[Scoria]

It's under the passage entitled "Procrastination, Sleepless Nights, and You." ;-)

Re:I read it...

[__aaclcg7560]

Twenty years ago... I think smoking would be the big in-thing for people to do. I'm not sure how big caffeine would measure up to that addiction.

During the Great California Power Outage a few years ago, whenever the lights would go out, everyone would head outdoors to grab a smoke. Me... I would grab some soda on the way out and complain about how all the second-hand smoke was killing me.

Re:I read it...

[Acy James Stapp]

That chick is in the top 10 on stileproject.com and I wholeheartedly agree.

Self abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have thought self abuse would have been more of a worry for geeks.

I don't know about programmer abuse...

[Anonymous Coward]

but there is definitely some sys admin abuse going on here.

Social Anxiety

[Scoria]

Many of us have observed that "geeks" are often anxious in a social situation. Be sure to socialize often; if you cannot, then professional counseling may be in order. Social skills are essential in a business environment. You're only as confident as you feel, and by extension appear to others.

Re:Social Anxiety

[B1ackDragon]

I agree with your point whole heartedly, but would like to stress that social skills are essential to a whole lot more than the business environment. I find it somewhat disheartening that so many "geeks" are actually proud of the basement dwelling stereotype they've acquired. We have been social animals for our whole evolution, after all.

Also, the essay is quite good, and short. So, for all of you that haven't, go RTFA for once (disclaimer: I'm notorious for not following my own advice in many aspects.)

Re:Social Anxiety

[Saint Stephen]

A lot of how people define you has more with how they see themselves.

Re:Social Anxiety

[reflective recursion]

It's not just computer-savvy geeks anymore. The trend is reaching into the mainstream now, with things like IM and cell phones.

Take a walk around a college campus or a mall some time. If you see someone that is not walking with another person, they will usually have a cell phone in hand. You may wonder how that is anti-social, but the reason they have a cell phone is to hide behind it. Just like geeks hide behind the keyboard, "ordinary" people hide behind cell phones to avoid conversation with new and strange people.

I'd bet good money that an increasing number of the people walking around with cell phones have anxiety when not using it. I would also wager that the act of just using a cell phone contributes to developing anxiety and anti-social behavior. Much like overusage of a computer does.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it somewhat disheartening that so many "geeks" are actually proud of the basement dwelling stereotype they've acquired.

Why not?? I was a "basement dweller" for a long time. OK, I didn't live in my parents' basement, but I spent most of my waking time doing computers. 10 years of that professionally and two cycles of hot market for computer contractors, I earned and saved enough money to retire at the age of 35. With my new found time, I started socializing, found a wife and started a family (and got back into work part-time to cover the bills comfortably)... Yeah, being a geek is awful... just awful... :-]

Re:Social Anxiety

[reflective recursion]

Obviously they would have to know the person they are talking to. That does not make it less anti-social. They don't want to talk to new people--they want to talk to familiar people.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Fallingcow]

Take a walk around a college campus or a mall some time. If you see someone that is not walking with another person, they will usually have a cell phone in hand.

Lots of people on my campus use their cell phone walking between classes even when they are walking with another person. I've seen couples walking together, both of them on their cell phones at the same time.

Re:Social Anxiety

[wintermute1000]

I'd like to share an amusing anecdote involving somebody I know and a cell phone. Last week she was waiting for a class to begin and she went up and looked in the window of the room. It was supposed to be a section with 20 people enrolled and there was one guy in there. Rather than go in and ask him what was going on, she took out her phone and pretended to be standing there talking to somebody, while actually just waiting to see if anyone else would go into the room. Talk about using the phone to avoid a social situation...

Eventually, she went in and it turned out that a few students had some to the consensus that the professor was at a conference. Took her ten minutes of standing outside the window "talking" to work up the nerve, though.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how much did you miss out on in your first 35 years? You'll never be able to do sports like you could have in your teens and 20s. And you can't go back to being 14 and losing your virginity at a normal age... 35?? Yikes.

Re:Social Anxiety

[darrylo]

I find it somewhat disheartening that so many "geeks" are actually proud of the basement dwelling stereotype they've acquired.

They're all huddled around (what they think to be) "My Precious" .... ;-)

Re:Social Anxiety

[bersl2]

On this subject, I would say that synchronous forms of communication are more sociable than asynchronous forms. I say this mostly on the basis that I am more comfortable in sending an email or leaving a post on Slashdot, as opposed to making a phone call or being involved in an IM conversation or chatroom discussion.

Re:Social Anxiety

[macshit]

... but the reason they have a cell phone is to hide behind it.

Yeah I've noticed that too.

Cell phones are also often used in a more benign way, as a "fidget toy" to reduce anxiety in uncomfortable social situations (the same way you'd take a sip of your drink when you're not sure what to say).

This is especially good because for some people they seem to have replaced cigarettes for this purpose -- sure cell phones can be annoying, but they're a damn site better than clouds of foul smelling smoke!

Re:Social Anxiety

[drooling-dog]

You may wonder how that is anti-social, but the reason they have a cell phone is to hide behind it.

I've long suspected that this is true. Just walking through a campus or down a street is anxiogenic for many, many people. Every person they encounter is another social dilemma: Do I make eye contact, do I avert my glance in a possibly obvious and unfriendly way, etc. Not only does a cell phone give you something else to focus on, but it also projects the impression that you have friends, or at least that there's one person in the world who's willing to talk to you. It works whether there's anyone at the other end, or not.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Bush Pig]

This behaviour strikes me as being _seriously_ disfunctional.

Re:Social Anxiety

[macshit]

I'm definitely someone you could describe as "anti-social", and I'm sure this is a negative thing for me in many ways, in a society where social connections are very important.

I've thought about this a fair bit, and compared my reactions to that of outgoing friends -- and I've reached the conclusion that a large part of it is because I simply like people less(!): In equally stressful situations, the more outgoing person will put up with the stress, and the crap, because they want to be with people, but at some point I just say the hell with it, it's not worth it.

Some of the above-mentioned outgoing friends complain endless about the people they hang out with. I'll ask "If you don't like them, then why hang out with them?" -- and there will be this weird feeling of mutual incomprehension, and they'll say "Well there's no-one else to hang out with, I don't want anybody to think I'm alone!"

Onwards we stumble...

Re:Social Anxiety

[fucksl4shd0t]

So, for all of you that haven't, go RTFA for once (disclaimer: I'm notorious for not following my own advice in many aspects.)

From the fucking article:

Advice is free and worth every penny of it.

Re:Social Anxiety

[xouumalperxe]

the same way you'd take a sip of your drink when you're not sure what to say Finally I understand why I drank more this last New Year's eve than in the rest of my life combined!

Re:Social Anxiety

[B1ackDragon]

I don't think I actually would describe someone such as yourself "anti-social." Possibly a homebody (much like myself), but otherwise you seem to be a more "social" person that half the people on this damn website.

The importance of being "social" I was trying to stress has more to do with just being nice to people, as opposed to "social connections" and "networking" skills. Getting along with others when one has to is an extreemly important skill, not really related to the amount of social activity done.

Re:Social Anxiety

[slappyjack]

I, for one, would GLADLY have the clouds of foul smelling smoke back in order to not have to hear the mindless prattling of every dicktard in my general area.

I'm just sayin'.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Dabido]

To me, it sounds like you are describing the problem between the Jungian Melancholic Person (yourself) and the Jungian Sanguine Person.

I've seen some Sanguine's do some pretty weird stuff in order to draw attention to themselves, which usually results in the Melancholics wanting to strangle them. Sanguines need a group, and need people, which is why they cause and also put up with a lot of crap ... and why they think it's important to maintain thier social image. (In this case, "...I don't want anybody to think I'm alone!")

Melancholics tend to be more introverted and don't need a groups approval as much. (Doesn't mean you are 'Anti-social', though I've seen that tag pu ton many a Melancholic). As such, your friends explaination as to why they put up with people would seem incomprehesible to you, while making perfect sense to themselves.

Just my two cents. Hope it is useful.

CHeers.

Re:Social Anxiety

[ultranova]

So, how much did you miss out on in your first 35 years? You'll never be able to do sports like you could have in your teens and 20s.

True - at 35 you should be mature enough to not get an obsession over success, and as such won't push as hard as you would had as an unsure teen. Nor are you likely to use steroids or do any other foolish thing just to run a bit faster and farther.

Truly horrible, to do sports for fun and not for peer pressure ;(.

Disclaimer: I'm not 35 yet, so I couldn't really know how mature a typical 35 year old is. Therefore, it is entirely possible that I'm wrong, and that the typical 35 year old gets obsessed even worse than a typical teen.

And you can't go back to being 14 and losing your virginity at a normal age... 35?? Yikes.

Better late than never, eh ?-)

At least at 35 you don't need to worry about your parents reactions, should they found out...

Re:Social Anxiety

[BitchKapoor]

That's interesting, I tend to find the synchronous forms like IM easier than the asynchronous ones like e-mail, because you don't have to wait around wondering how someone is going to react -- you know right away, and can adapt/clarify quickly to avoid making yourself look bad.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Anonymous Coward]

I earned and saved enough money to retire at the age of 35. With my new found time, I started socializing, found a wife and started a family (and got back into work part-time to cover the bills comfortably)... Yeah, being a geek is awful... just awful... :-]

So you have wasted your whole youth for being able to retire at the age of 35 and you think you did well...

I wouldn't switch places with you.

Re:Social Anxiety

[JaredOfEuropa]

I agree with your point whole heartedly, but would like to stress that social skills are essential to a whole lot more than the business environment. I find it somewhat disheartening that so many "geeks" are actually proud of the basement dwelling stereotype they've acquired. We have been social animals for our whole evolution, after all.

What's wrong with being a basement dweller? I find it very disheartening that being sociable or extroverted is perceived to be superior to being introverted. It's understandable... after all, you will get more fun out of another person if that person is sociable, and most leaders and other public, influential people are (necessarily) sociable. Good social skills are associated with success to the point where people will say "he will go far!" of someone with very good social skills but no other skills to speak of. And sadly, they are sometimes right.

I'm not contesting that social skills are useful, and sometimes necessary for advancing a career. But many basement dwelling nerds are perfectly happy and functional members of our society (even if they prefer to spend as little time in it as they can). Isn't that what's important? I know a few people who are a bit anti-social: they often spend time with one or two friends at a time, but they simply do not function well in larger groups. They hate being in larger groups. And yet they make themselves go to parties and company functions, because that is what society expects of them (and your comment reflects that), even though the experience makes them thoroughly miserable. They would be perfectly happy individuals except for the fact that society makes them feel bad about their anti-social behaviour.

My point is: social skills are often important to advance your career, and one would do well to take note of that fact. It's also very good to give being sociable a try... it never hurts to expand one's horizon in whatever direction, and you may find that you like the company of others after all! But don't let people like the parent poster make you leave your basement, if it makes you miserable and unhappy.

Re:Social Anxiety

[bbtom]

As for the "he will go far!" thing, I see it more as a descriptive statement (probably because he, whoever he is, is probably shagging the daughters of half the board of directors and greasing his way up the chain of command) than a normative statement (that is, that I want it to be the case or find that to be anything but morally repulsive).

Re:Social Anxiety

[fitten]

At least at 35 you don't need to worry about your parents reactions, should they found out...


I would imagine that finding out would take a load off the parents' shoulders...

Re:Social Anxiety

[stonecypher]

This is called the spotlight fallacy, and is a special case of the broader fallacy Biased sample. Its shortest form is "between form A which is visible and form B which is not, all I ever see is form A, so surely form A is predominant." Of course everyone you know using cell phones also exists in the real world: if they didn't, you wouldn't know them.

That's why chat rooms get the bad reputations: they're a quick line to people which don't use other communications media. Whereas sure there are some shut-ins on IRC, personally I've found the ratio to be far smaller than that of a moderately sized college class, DMV line, or other cross-social-barrier settings.

Your observation is thusly flawed.

Re:Social Anxiety

[stonecypher]

You may wonder how that is anti-social, but the reason they have a cell phone is to hide behind it.

I originally got mine for driving directions when moving across the country, and kept it because I found that being able to make and receive phone calls while not at home was convenient. If anything, cellular phones make it more difficult to hide, not less - you can be reached anywhere (unless your phone is a Sprint phone like mine.)

There's the nickname "electronic leash" for a reason.

Re:Social Anxiety

[stonecypher]

but it also projects the impression that you have friends, or at least that there's one person in the world who's willing to talk to you. It works whether there's anyone at the other end, or not. ... much like posting on Slashdot, except to fool others instead of one's self?

(At the beep, it will be 9:35 AM. ... Beep.)

Re:Social Anxiety

[stonecypher]

I find it somewhat disheartening that so many "geeks" are actually proud of the basement dwelling stereotype they've acquired.

Yeah, and that I can't find my fifty cent off coupon for shampoo appalls me. I'm out of mustard - what an inhumane outrage. The light burnt out; this is so cruelly unjust it's criminal.

Hint: 'dishearten' isn't the same as 'disappoint.' Dishearten was coined by Shakespeare, and means "anguish of the mind." As far as your choice of words, this is the standard-issue sledgehammer for a nail proverb (well, in this case, perhaps steamroller to straighten the rug.) What you said was equivalent to "You've bean me at tic tac toe. I am embroiled in a murderous rage." Tone down the drama, there, champ.

Re:Social Anxiety

[stonecypher]

but would like to stress that social skills are essential to a whole lot more than the business environment. I find it somewhat disheartening that so many "geeks" are actually proud of the basement dwelling stereotype they've acquired.

What's wrong with being a basement dweller? I find it very disheartening that being sociable or extroverted is perceived to be superior to being introverted.

It's a shame that the grandparent chose to appeal to emotion at the end of what he was saying; otherwise I could point out that all the grandparent actually said was that people which aren't in a social setting frequently lack social skills, which has nothing to do with superiority and would uncover what appeared at a distance to be a defensiveness on parent's part.

But many basement dwelling nerds are perfectly happy and functional members of our society (even if they prefer to spend as little time in it as they can).

This fallacy is called Equivocation, and most people will miss it because the primary target is in what the grandparent wrote. Both by context and common sense, the phrase "society" was used by grandparent to mean "social setting in which people openly interact." In order to make a point, you have attempted to switch gears to mean "society as a whole where we talk about things like the common good." The two are not exchangeable.

The topic at hand is specifically the basement dweller, whose sole definition is that they withdraw from the original important form of "society" meaning "people drinking beers and espresso under the daystar." Therefore, by context, no, cave swellers are neither happy nor functioning members of society, whether or not they enjoy their lives, have a job, pay taxes, et cetera. The suggestion that their status as a functioning member of the national community has anything to do with grandparent's disappointment that some people choose to withdraw, however - and I've had to use that phrase to distance myself from your equivocation - is a total straw man, and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Good social skills are associated with success to the point where people will say "he will go far!" of someone with very good social skills but no other skills to speak of. And sadly, they are sometimes right.

It's amusing to watch you nod and agree with someone about stereotypes, only to watch you turn around and lambast people which don't exit schooling with their entire skillset intact for not already being a professional, and then further slander them as if social skills themselves aren't job skills. Maybe you should go to a college and ask a communications major what they really do; what you just pretended was insufficient for a job is in fact an entire field of study, and is considered one of the most valuable assets of many settings in which negotiations are common, such as large business, politics, police work and therapy.

If you're going to complain about other people's biases, mind operating without your own for a while?

I'm not contesting that social skills are useful, and sometimes necessary for advancing a career.

This doesn't make sense unless you meant "aren't useful," so I'll assume that was a typo. Yes, you quite clearly are saying exactly that, by way of your enthymeme earlier.

Please explain how "Good social skills are associated with someone which will go far; sadly this is often correct" somehow does not hinge on the unspoken "social skills are not ethically sufficient in the workplace."

They would be perfectly happy individuals except for the fact that society makes them feel bad about their anti-social behaviour.

If your workplace offers a company psychologist, I'd like you to take a lunch break to go discuss this issue with them. Humans are social animals, and are never happy without contact; hermits are not happy people.

Just because superficially the pain endured by going to a party seems greater th

Re:Social Anxiety

[Anonymous Coward]

I never I said I lost my virginity at 35, I said I found a wife some time after 35... If you can't see the difference, you're one giant moron.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have wasted your whole youth for being able to retire at the age of 35 and you think you did well...

No. I spent my youth producing stuff: software, some of which are quite useful and used every day.

I wouldn't switch places with you.

Glad to hear that. I don't want to switch places with someone who thinks the youths' top priorities should be parties, parties, parties.

Re:Social Anxiety

[Single GNU Theory]

Go with the cell phone talkers every time. It is much easier to get away with stuffing your ear canals with iPod buds than stuffing your nostrils with them. In public, at least.

Plus, nobody will complain that you reek of iPod.

Re:Social Anxiety

[JaredOfEuropa]

... and would uncover what appeared at a distance to be a defensiveness on parent's part.

To a degree, yes.

I'm not contesting that social skills are useful, and sometimes necessary for advancing a career.

This doesn't make sense unless you meant "aren't useful,"

Contesting : [...] To call into question.
eg. "I am not [calling into question] that social skills are useful". Yes, that is what I meant.

Jesus. All he said was "I think it's sad that so many people are proud of being shut-ins." Overreact much?

Jesus... all I said was that people should try to go out a bit more but not force it upon themselves only because society says so, and in response I get this verbal diarrhea where you psychoanalyse me, my co-workers, hermits in general, read all sorts of things that I did not write, tell me what I am not, guess my profession (getting it wrong), correct my text (managing to get it wrong too)... and then you top it off by accusing me of overreacting?.

Re:Social Anxiety

[stonecypher]

Contesting : [...] To call into question.
eg. "I am not [calling into question] that social skills are useful".

No, dear. That's not how the referential interrogative works.

"I am not arguing that he is a murderer." Does this say "the argument I am making is not that he is a murderer", or "his being a murderer is established and I am not questionning it?" What you said reads as "My argument is not that social skills are useful," hence my wanting to invert the appositive. Get a grammar book.

"I think it's sad that so many people are proud of being shut-ins." "people should try to go out a bit more but not force it upon themselves only because society says so"

"and then you top it off by accusing me of overreacting?" Yep. You're doing it again. If I say hermits aren't happy people, I'm psychoanalyzing them? And where, exactly, did I analyze you? Is it analysis to suggest you ask a professional about a misconception in their field? I mean, if you said "carbide steel is sharp enough to cut glass," would I be analyzing you to tell you to go to sears and ask if carbide without the common diamond coating can cut glass?

read all sorts of things that I did not write,

Oh, settle down. I didn't read anything you didn't write.

tell me what I am not, guess my profession (getting it wrong)

The only thing that even remotely fits these two seperate accusations is my saying "you're not a psychologist," and given that you are each flying off of the handle and repeating common mistakes about human nature, and given that you're misspelling simple frequently used psychologist words like "analyze," I stand by my evaluation: if you tell me you're a psychologist, I will believe you're lying.

And sure, maybe you're a gas-lamp laudanist from the Victorian era, but I've just got to retain my doubt. Real psychologists don't throw this big a fit over a simple ribbing. Real psychologists don't suggest that shut-ins are made happy by remaining shut-in. Real psychologists don't think that the stress from avoiding groups comes from social pressures. Real psychologists are critically aware of issues like equivocation and enthymemes, because they're primary tools in identifying and dissecting delusional systems.

I mean, look. If you show up in a public forum, and some guy starts talking about using gum to seal a leak, thinks the cracks have been there since the pipe was made, and is holding their monkey wrench upside down, wouldn't you say "listen, you're not a plumber, stop giving advice?"

Re:Social Anxiety

[abb3w]

What's wrong with being a basement dweller?

Speaking as someone tending to the antisocial introvert myself, it's more often a weakness than a strength. Introverts remain comfortable longer in environments that don't bring them in contact with other people, be it the insides of a 200 acre server farm, or a Nation park fire watch tower. Extroverts remain confortable in crowds, and constantly dealing with other people.

Barring pathological cases, either kind can tolerate in the other's environment for a reasonable time. However, for both, it requires mental effort, and is draining over prolonged periods.

The problem introverts face is that in modern society, due to the interdependence of social structures, more and more nitches in the social equallity require social interaction. Ergo, the current environment leads extroverts to prosper, and introverts to struggle. It's not "wrong". However, it is a more disadvantageous than advantageous trait these days.

No, I can't prove this; I have better things to do than write a Sociology masters' thesis on Slashdot. But we introverts may be an endangered species.

Re:Social Anxiety

[che.kai-jei]

of a moderately sized college class.....or other cross-social-barrier settings.

i'm sorry? how is college a 'cross-social-barrier' environment? in england it CERTAINLY is not one

and college in uk = up to* US$2600 per year in fees for wealthy/comfortable people [the poor get fees waived - ie * it is means tested on a sliding scale of income] which one can opt to get an up to $8000 dollar loan at near interst free [relative to natural inflation] loan to pay for costs PER YEAR!!!! please dont be delusional but college is a place if priveledge.

a dmv line in USA is probably sound as cars are cheap and under regulated there but still a million miles away from college USA

ps thusly is still considered a disputed/contraversial mauled adverb although you use it without an adverb aplication.

i dont want t be mean but if my students ever used 'thusly' to sound clever -- I would, to use your venacular, academically whale on them! After all i take them seriuosly, but i would want others to do so.

It was implied.

[wasted]

The author talked about the importance of personal chemistry. I guess he means that we need to be aware of our own personal chemical compositions, and make sure that we do not suffer from deficiencies of caffeine or other essential chemicals.

Re:It was implied.

[stonecypher]

Between the phrase "other essential chemicals" and your nick, I think caffeine isn't the only thing implied. Then again, my nick's no better...

Oh grow up

[Timesprout]

The site has one story, so clearly its a massive problem. Sarcasm aside plenty of other professionals work long thankless hours to get ahead without half the whining geeks manage. Face it. Writing code does not make you half as fucking precious as you think you are, and hard work was never meant to be easy.

Re:Oh grow up

[antifoidulus]

You are my new hero!

Re:Oh grow up

[dancing blue]

talk about half blind. If you were a recovering alcoholic and you wrote something to help other recovering alcoholic's, it does not automatically mean you are being "precious".

Just because a group recognizes a problem thaat they have, doesn't mean they are considering themselves precious. So what if other social groups/professions/whatever have the same problem.

Re:Oh grow up

[An Onerous Coward]

A few random points:

1) Are you trying to be a prick, or does it just come naturally?

2) The article can be applied to most of those "other professionals working long [shouldbeacommahere] thankless hours". Regardless of the nature of your job--so long as it requires even a modicum of creativity--overworking yourself may be less productive than working according to a sane schedule. In short, it's good advice for everybody, and doesn't amount to coders demanding special treatment.

3) Is it really "getting ahead" if it means we die of stress-induced coronaries before the age of 50? On the bright side, at that point we don't really lose much. A couple of decades of neglect should be enough to dump anyone's personal life down the toilet.

4) I think the major difference between you and me is that you appear to idolize the overachievers who put in 12-16 hour days to "get ahead", and seem to get really touchy when that lifestyle is called into question. Me, I consider them to be a bunch of morons who are driven by a mix of greed and ego.

Re:Oh grow up

[CaptainCarrot]

plenty of other professionals work long thankless hours to get ahead without half the whining geeks manage.

First, if they're "getting ahead" then the long hours aren't thankless. Getting ahead is the reward for the long hours. The problem is when you work the long hours and get nothing in return for it. This is the situation in which many programmers find themselves. In fact, if you work hard enough to damage your ability to perform in the long run, and after that's happened you find yourself not qualified for a different job paying the same or better, you've done the exact opposite of getting ahead, haven't you?

Second, I think you'd have to look awfully hard to find another profession where working 20 hours of unpaid overtime a week is regarded as a norm. It's certainly not tolerated in any unionized job. Not even doctors do this absent emergencies, after they finish their internships.

No matter how many other people are doing this, it's still unhealthy. Join the lemming rush if you like; I'm going to be having a picnic on the edge of the cliff and watching you go over.

(And yes, I know lemmings don't actually do this. It's a useful metaphor anyway.)

Re:Oh grow up

[xouumalperxe]

but maybe it's the other professionals who should be complaining, rather than the geeky software engineer who should shut up. I mean, there's bitching and moaning, and there's human rights.

Re:Oh grow up

[bluGill]

I know of one profession that works lots of unpaid overtime: CXX (CEO, CFO, ...). That is the very top people in any company. Of course they have fit your profile of being rewarded for their hard work.

I make two, maybe three times as much money as I need for a comfortable life, and I'm pretty sure I'm getting less than I'm worth. If you want me to work long hours (for more than one critical week here and there) your in for a surprise : I don't care. I'll work long hours here and there when required. I'll work long hours when I'm "in the zone". I won't work long hours in general though, because I have a life outside of work. (though sometimes that life is nothing more than /. and kde, I'd get fired for either on company time)

Re:Oh grow up

[Anonymous Coward]

And just imagine if some of these CEO's worked normal hours. Maybe so many stupid decisions (like those which predicated the enron collapse) wouldnt have been made.

How many CEO's/CFO's etc working insane hours have driven their companies into the ground through insanely poor judgement.

Re:Oh grow up

[mutterc]

I think the major difference between you and me is that you appear to idolize the overachievers who put in 12-16 hour days to "get ahead"

I will go even farther and say: working that much is unlikely to even get you ahead. Typically, in my experience, the cost/benefit analysis for programmers is like this:

• Work 40 hours a week: Some hostility with management, probability of termination in 6 months = 10%, P(term(2 years)) = 40%, P(term(10 years)) = 100% (I am based in the U.S.), P(decent raise/promotion) = depends on job market.
• Work 60 hours a week: Little hostility with mgmt. P(term(6mo)) = 8%, P(term(2y)) = 35%, P(term(10y)) = 100%, P(raise) = depends on job market, +1% to 2%.
• Work 80 hours a week: Management loves you. P(term(6mo)) = 6%, P(term(2y)) = 30%, P(term(10y)) = 100%, P(raise) = depends on job market, +3% to 5%.

Is it really worth spending the time that it would take to work an entire second job for such little potential gain? Do you think your raises would add up to how much you could make working 20-40 hours per week at Wendy's?

I know abuse, but

[www.sorehands.com]

What are normal hours? When programming, sometimes you get into a zone and forget time. This is different from a 450lb CEO sitting in your cubical threatening to sit in your arms - to make you type faster. Or firing you for getting medical treatment.

One is brought about by inspiration, the other is by bad management.

Re:I know abuse, but

[Anonymous Coward]

My cubical threatening? I've never seen a cubical threatening. The other day, however, I was in my cubicle and I used a dictionary. Turns out 'cubical' means shaped like a cube. It's not a noun.

Weinberg on Fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's be honest with ourselves. It's fun to abuse our bodies once in a while. Who can honestly deny the seductiveness of a candy feast, a beverage binge, or an all-night work orgy?

WTF? Once in a while I like to blow 300 bucks at the titty bar. Work all night? No way in hell.

Re:Weinberg on Fun

[grub]

WTF? Once in a while I like to blow 300 bucks at the titty bar.

20 years ago it was easy for me to spend 3-4 nights a week at the pub, crawl home at 2 AM, sleep ~5 hours and get to work somewhat refreshed. Now (at 39) I can stay out once a month until 10 PM, sleep ~6 hours and get to work feeling like a bag of shit.

Ah the ravages of age...

Re:Weinberg on Fun

[Rick and Roll]

Go to sleep at 10PM, get six hours of sleep? That's 4:00 in the morning. Either you go to work at around 5am, which too damn early, or it takes you hours to get to work.

Re:Weinberg on Fun

[Anonymous Coward]

the older you get, the less you can sleep. or so I hear.

Re:Weinberg on Fun

[chialea]

>WTF? Once in a while I like to blow 300 bucks at the titty bar. Work all night? No way in hell.

There are times when it is very much worth it. Back in high school, I was on a FIRST robotics team. I worked for a week straight. (I wasn't very coherent after the first few days, but the robot worked at the end of this.) As an undergrad I'd stay up with a few friends and work on theory problem sets, which were really quite interesting. As a grad student I try to sleep, eat, and exercise regularly, but I work quite long hours, which sometimes includes all-nighters.

I love what I do. Sometimes, it's wonderful to give myself over entirely to that.

Lea

Re:Weinberg on Fun

[Anonymous Coward]

That can't be right - when you become very, very old you will sleep forever.

Re:Weinberg on Fun

[StrawberryFrog]

Stay out until 10, get home at 11, get to bed at 12, get to sleep at 1.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I want my games late!

[0x000000]

I want my games way past their origional release date. Most of the time updates have allready come out to fix most major bugs, and game play has been further updated.

Working people extremely hard only introduces bugs and causes your product to have flaws which for the first people to play it will make it an experience that is not worth it.

Give the programmers some rest. They produce better products that way.

Re:I want my games late!

[Dogtanian]

Give the programmers some rest. They produce better products that way.

The premise of your argument is wrong; you assume that the #1 priority of the people in power is to produce the best product possible.

The #1 priority of people in power is to sell as many units as possible for as high a price as possible, and if that means shipping a lousy product for Christmas, then so be it.

good advice.. for those who can take it

[evilmousse]

tfa seems like good advice. i've known people to whom a regular schedule came naturally, and i envy them to some degree.

i've never felt right getting up before 10, and i've always wanted to stay up late. --ALL-- my life, but admittedly, less so lately as i'm approaching late 20s and for the most part have a daily routine.

i dream one day we'll put rockets in the earth and slow the rotation so that we get 36 hour days. 12 work, 12 play, 12 sleep, THAT would come naturally to me. 8 of each just isn't enough in one day.

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[Anonymous Coward]

Life tends to be more like 8 work, 8 sleep, 4 play, 4 shit you have to do. Shit like shitting, eating, moving around from place to place, hygiene, cleaning whatever, buying shit.

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[Anonymous Coward]

That study was debunked because they used artificial light in 30 hour cycles.

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[clean_stoner]

As a 19 year old college student I run into a similar problem, although my natural schedule isn't as clean as 36 hours either. I need about 10 hours of sleep, and about 16-18 hours awake... so I need a 26-28 hour day.

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[evilmousse]

hahahah, absolutely right. i'll amend my story next time i tell it ^^

tap for upkeep..

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember using a dictionary, and it says that "article" is not spelled "artical". I mean, would you pronounce that ARE-TEE-KAL when you talk?

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is spelled "artical".put pronounced Assholes-Whose-Only-Comment-Is-To-Corrct-Spelling- And/Or-Punctuation-Hve-A-Teeny-Tiny-Little-Penis.

Is this clear enough for you?

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, whatever, but it's just that you come off like an illiterate hillbilly whenever you use chatroom-level spelling. Seriously, it's like an icepick in the eyes every time I see misspellings like that.

And honestly, is it THAT hard to get it right?

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[Dun Malg]

Hey, whatever, but it's just that you come off like an illiterate hillbilly whenever you use chatroom-level spelling. Seriously, it's like an icepick in the eyes every time I see misspellings like that.

And honestly, is it THAT hard to get it right?

Most people who can't spell are people who don't read much (in the way of complex, proofread works of book length), and therefore aren't as familiar with how words are supposed to look. For those who read a lot, misspelled words are, as you say, "like an icepick in the eyes". Those who spell badly generally have no idea that they've made an error.

Re:good advice.. for those who can take it

[stonecypher]

Please feel free to actually give us this study, since just about everything involving the phrase "circadian rhythm" says you're utterly wrong.

If you need counterpoint other than an entire branch of medicine, consider watching the Nova special on the Mars Rover team. They do isolate themselves from the Earth solar cycle, and their day shift is only 45 minutes; nonetheless, two weeks in, every single one of them is constantly yawning, and complaining about the difficulty of the slightly longer Martian day.

Please

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of us are simply introverts. It's just who we are. Extroverts seem convinced that we're "broken" and thus must be "fixed" with counselling, or medication, or whatever. I'd rather be alone than with a group of people I don't know. Small group of my friends? Fine, great, as long as it doesn't last forever.

For the extroverts out there, I suggest you read Caring for Your Introvert.

Re:Please

[Dun Malg]

For the extroverts out there, I suggest you read Caring for Your Introvert.

For link posters out there, I suggest not referring people to articles that require a paid subscription to the site in order to read past the first paragraph.

Re:Please

[Anonymous Coward]

It was free last time I looked. Here's a reprint. Google is a magical thing.

Re:Please

[fader]

Google turns up a reprint here with no registration required.

Alternatives?

[mabu]

People criticize the pseudo-xenophobic, anti-social nerd culture, but honestly, have you looked around at what's going on "outside?" I don't blame a lot of these guys for getting lost in the glow of a screen.

I have subcontractors I work with. Some of them are brilliant coders and designers, but putting them in the boardroom would create a scene. OTOH, if I had these guys brush their hair and teeth more often and they discovered GURLS, their productivity would likely be exponentially reduced. They might have a more normal social experience, but they'd also likely sacrifice the uniqueness that their antisocial position has manifested that resulted in superior coding and design.

I contend that the ultra-passionate are the ones that really create quantum change in our society, and often this is at the cost of pandering to many other socially-appropriate conventions. I'm not sure whether it's best to try to become more socially acceptable or work to dispell the notion that if you don't look or act "normal" you have no chance for advancement?

Then again, I concede that how we treat ourselves is a reflection of how we treat others. I would have less faith in the code produced by a morbidly obsese programmer who obviously has no personal self control, than someone who wasn't as personally self-destructive and negligent, because you can bet their habits bleed into their work as well.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon. You know you're glad the McRib is back.

Re:Alternatives?

[dubl-u]

They might have a more normal social experience, but they'd also likely sacrifice the uniqueness that their antisocial position has manifested that resulted in superior coding and design.

Those interested in the relationship between "normal" mentality and things like creativity or productivity will enjoy reading these books:

• Tocuhed With Fire: Manic Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament , a look by a bipolar psychiatrist at the close relationship between creativity and mental illness,
• Thinking In Pictures and Other Reports from My Life with Autism , a memoir by an autistic woman describing her unusual mentality and the life that resulted from it, and
• The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time , a hugely enjoyable book written from the point of view of a boy with autism.

All present interesting portraits of people who are far from normal and wouldn't have it any other way. The second one is especially relvant to the Slashdot crowd as it covers people with Asperger's Syndrome and explicitly recommends computing as a career for the autistic.

All of these made me once again question the current medical viewpoint that treats a pretty narrow range of capability and behavior as normal, and everything else to be medicatable. Especially after reading Thinking in Pictures, it was easy for me to imagine a world where the geek/autism range was normal, and the excessively social minority was encouraged to take medication to help them stop obsessing over trival details of other people's lives.

Of course, I live in San Francisco, where between the artists, the geeks, and the outright freaks, we're not far away from that anyhow. Just last month the city council voted, more or less, to rename the Bay Bridge for our patron saint of weirdness, Emperor Norton the First.

Re:Alternatives?

[drdink]

What the hell is with the McRib commercials? They suck.

Re:Alternatives?

[Dogtanian]

C'mon. You know you're glad the McRib is back.

Classic one-line response. Why did you AC this?...

Re:Alternatives?

[Stween]

Your first link appears to be an unforunate copy of the second. Corrected here:

Touched With Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament

Re:Alternatives?

[dubl-u]

Oops! Thanks for the fix!

Long hours != good software

[imnoteddy]

This buddy of mine was once working about five minutes from where I was working so one morning I called him up and said "Want to meet for lunch?" and he said "No, I've got a bug, can't take time for lunch." So I called him the next morning and asked him about lunch again. He said that he still had the bug and couldn't take tiime for lunch. I asked him if he'd fixed the bug by not going to lunch the previous day. After a long period of silence I asked him when I should pick him up for lunch. He bitched about the bug in the car, and then we talked about other things at lunch.

When I talked to him the next morning he said he'd found the bug within an hour after getting back from lunch.

I will let the reader find the moral to this story.

Re:Long hours != good software

[stefanb]

There was a bug in his salad?

Re:Long hours != good software

[Anonymous Coward]

the bug is an excuse he uses because he really despises you and wants to avoid having lunch with you? then he bitches in the car about it because he needs to release his frustration caused by your persistent nagging?

Re:Long hours != good software

[10am-bedtime]

moral of the story:

eat lunch at joints dripping w/ insecticide

? hmmm, that can't be it.

Re:Long hours != good software

[Anonymous Coward]

No. There was a fly in his soup.;-)

Re:Long hours != good software

[stonecypher]

I will let the reader find the moral to this story.

That we need to run naked through the streets of Athens more often?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

don't get it..

[Pfhreakaz0id]

10 years in coding/web design. Never had a job where I averaged more than 40 hours a week. Never had a week that I've worked more than 50. It's called comp time and setting boundaries. First time on a new job I'm asked to work late I say "let me check with my wife." and usually it's fine. Then I say "in the future, unless it is a true emergency, I need at least 1 day, preferable 2 days of notice to make arrangments.". Then, later that week, probably Friday, I'll say "I'm leaving early, 'cause I stayed late Tuesday." If they say a problem, I say, "
well, I can take it next week". Note: DO NOT PHRASE THIS AS A QUESTION! Like "can I leave early". Just announce it.

This has always worked for me, and frankly, I have no sympathy for people who work long hours and gripe. It's your choice.

Re:don't get it..

[Anonymous Coward]

10 years coding/web design eh? is that like those people with 5 years of java experience in 1996?

your methodology is fine and well, until your employer realizes he can get more productivity out of someone else and fires your silly ass. you might not have sympathy for those people who work long hours, but you will come to loathe them when one of them takes your position. all is fair in love and war.. as well as capitalistic greed.

Re:don't get it..

[oz_canetoad]

I was working for an ISP in 1995/6, part of my job required some HTML and CGI coding, this makes 10 years web design. And that was in a little dirt backwater called Australia.

Re:don't get it..

[Unknown Lamer]

Ten years of web design experience isn't that much. The web wasn't as popular back in 1995 but it was there.

Re:don't get it..

[xouumalperxe]

that depends a lot on the general work environment. Not out of a flame, or anything, but were any of those 10 years spent in even mildly shaky job conditions, or big companies? because I've never seen a job that wasn't almost surreally stable go that smoothly, and I feel that in my skin. Not through myself (I'm still in college), but through the time I don't spend with my dad.

Re:don't get it..

[Pfhreakaz0id]

ummm, I've worked at a start-up that went belly up. Some guys worked a lot of hours, but not me. And you know what? I survived through 3 rounds of layoffs as guys who worked a bunch of hours and were more senior got laid off... it's not how much but HOW you work..

But you're right, none at a company with more than 800 employees or so.

Re:don't get it..

[ZenFu]

I survived through 3 rounds of layoffs as guys who worked a bunch of hours and were more senior got laid off... it's not how much but HOW you work..

I wasted several years doing reengineering in the 90's and I think that where you work in the organization is more important than how you work or how long you work. If you have the wrong parent in the org or activity chart, you are probably gone regardless of your work style or perceived productivity.

Managers and others with influence occasionally intervened to save certain people. But often, they did little. As an eager-to-do-well outsider trying to get the highest reductions I could, I was often suprised to find out how quick and casually certain individuals would sell out others. (I sometimes found myself thinking, "Hey, isn't he/she a friend of yours...").

Re:don't get it..

[stonecypher]

10 years in coding/web design. Never had a job where I averaged more than 40 hours a week.

Wow, there's a surprise, an HTML jockey which both thinks they're a programmer and thinks they're exposed to the rigors of programming. Here's a hint: TEX isn't a programming language, PDF isn't a programming language, and type-1 postscript isn't a programming language. Neither is HTML. "But DHTML and and and" No, DHTML is HTML with DOM access. Until you add a language such as JavaScript, it's impotent.

It's called comp time and setting boundaries.

It's all well and good to say that, but when you're faced with an application crashing and the ship date looming, sometimes you just have to put your nose to the grindstone. Granted, general protection faults in the hands of the client aren't as damning as the challenges an HTML author faces, such as how to get the image to stop moving three pixels to the left under IE, but surely you can step down to the level of us lowly programmers and think in terms of trying to sell something which simply doesn't function?

Then I say "in the future, unless it is a true emergency, I need at least 1 day, preferable 2 days of notice to make arrangments."

You know, I'm certain when I call that phrase astoundingly arrogant and self-important you're going to knee-jerk assume that I mean that asserting one's rights is the problem. I'm not. What's uncomfortably presumptuous there are that 1) you think an employer doesn't know about these things, and 2) you think that an employer needs simple education from you.

Here's a basic course in understanding the world around you. Employers know about things like comp time and respecting employee contracts. If you have the sort of employer which works a programmer 60 hours a week, what you just said not only wouldn't phase them, but would chalk you up for the first bus leaving the company for any other employer, because you're fairly transparently a troublemaker. If you have the sort of employer which doesn't do that, you've openly condescended to them because they once requested overtime from you (and for what it's worth, that they requested in the first place is a clear sign that what you said didn't need to be said at all.)

If one of my employees said something like that to me, I'd begin evaluating their work caliber immediately. I don't overwork programmers at all, and have been known to force them to go home when they're on voluntary after hours. Nonetheless, what you just said would infuriate me: if it's an emergency, I can't schedule around your trivial ass, and frankly, being able to rely on you to stay long hours is what being salaried means: you work until the work is done, no longer, no shorter, which is why you're not being paid by the hour. Yes, if there's chronic overwork then the manager is screwing up, but if I'm asking you to stay late once a month, not only is that not abnormal, but the idea that I have to schedule it with you is inexcusable.

If you're a salaried employee, you've already agreed to be available. Grow up.

Then, later that week, probably Friday, I'll say "I'm leaving early, 'cause I stayed late Tuesday." If they say a problem, I say, "
well, I can take it next week". Note: DO NOT PHRASE THIS AS A QUESTION! Like "can I leave early". Just announce it.

If the office accepts that sort of thing you shouldn't need to tell them. If they don't, you've just dodged work and made yourself look like an ass.

Comp time doesn't work on the weekly scale, and doesn't come in whenever you magically want it. Whether or not you believe you are ethically owed that time, you do not have the right to simply walk out; your salary indebts you to stay until the work is done, not until you've worked 40 hours, no matter how you want to casually misread the law. There is exactly one state in the union which caps work hours, and even then not only are salaried employees mostly exempt, but further

Re:don't get it..

[Pfhreakaz0id]

ummm, I haven't done pure HTML (no coding in some sort of backend).. in about 6-7 years. That's just how I got my start. I write Java everyday and have for four years. Before that, ASP, VB, and Delphi (some Perl).

This has worked for me. Yes, I have a family and a life. If you need me to be available after hours, you better schedule it with me. I've never had a problem getting a job and will go get another.

Re:don't get it..

[yogibeaty]

Sorry, but anything other than a purely idiotic reading of the relevant labor laws says that unless you're an "exempt employee" , they have to pay you overtime over 40 hours. Not that they DO, mind you, but the law is pretty clear. Nowhere is it written in any labor law that your employer cannot set your hours to whatever they want; however, the DOL gets a little upset when workers in potentially dangerous situations work beyond what's "reasonable" and so I have a brief from my lawyer about what's "reasonable" in my sector (retail). I imagine every business of size has a similar brief.

In any case, if any of my employees (not programmers, thank god) came to me with that attitude, I'd cut them a final check on the spot, no waiting, just clear out your desk. I have had employees try power plays, and it's no fun to be around for any
of the other (more reasonable) employees.

Re:don't get it..

[stonecypher]

You know, out of the three industries I've worked in, programmers have by far been the least prone to complaint. Granted this balks a stereotype, and may be cultural - the industries I've worked in map directly to the cities I've lived in. Still, I worry that the tendency of mobs to agree has worsened your perception of an occupation unduly; the bulk of the programmers I've had the pleasure to know were, probably because it's their occupation, problem solvers. Amusingly, the only two programmers I've known which were prone to complaint were also the two which couldn't solve their own bugs.

Again, it might just be coincidence. (As far as cutting them a check on the spot, maybe work with them a bit; I've also had problem employees with that sort of attitude because their previous employer's behavior taught them to distrust me without knowing me. Set your boundaries, but give them a chance, y'know? Some people, once their bubbles are burst, turn into reliable trustable workers despite early attitude problems.)

Re:don't get it..

[Pfhreakaz0id]

that's just it... most programmers arent' very good a the social/political skills of business (i.e., not taking responsibility for stuff you don't control and excercising control of stuff that is there responsibility), so they get blamed for stuff. Of course there manager makes them work extra hours to make the deadline. Is HE gonna take the blame for setting an unreasonable deadline or screwing up the spec. No way! Not when the vast majority of programmers are unable to stand up and say "nope", let alone actually have the people skills to not take the blame when the crap hits the fan.

That was part of my point of my original post.

Re:don't get it..

[Pfhreakaz0id]

Isn't it interseting that I corrected you wrong assumption (that I'm an HTML monkey) and you can't be bothered to reply... the more I read your post, the more it infuriates me.

Here's a clue: the work is NEVER done.... I have gotten many jobs, never had a problem here in the midwest, make a damn good living, and just last week got a call from a previous employer practially begging me to come back to work for them, so I think I'm doing ok.

Re:don't get it..

[stonecypher]

and you can't be bothered to reply

I replied in another chain. Frankly, there was nothing in your response worth replying to. It was a bunch of baseless useless self aggrandizement and backpedalling.

Been wanting to stop wasting time

[Rick and Roll]

Too many times, I'll spend so much time doing nothing I wonder what happened to my day. I won't get up in time or I'm too tired.

I've been trying to break those habits, but the reason I've done that today is because my clothes aren't clean. I have only three pairs of pants that I like.

Also, I've lost my good pen. And it was 99 cents. It shouldn't be so important to me, but it is.

What I need is to learn to manage both time and money. To cut back on miscellaneous purchases and get a week and a half's worth of clothes would help tremendously.

This article has served as another reminder. If nothing else, I'll get to bed early so I can have a productive day tomorrow!

Agreed totally!

[oz_canetoad]

This marks my 22 year as a commercial programmer and my 26th as a programmer, and I have worked for many a large multi-national during that period. And I would have to agree with all his points, even today in our ever Politically Correct societies of the western world, appearence and presentation of one self accounts for more than one ability. Now don't get me wrong here you need the ability, but if candidate B is a better presented package externally you may find yourself at the bottom rung for a while.

Additionally I have seen very capable people passed over time and time again, because they have painted themselves into a corner by making themselves, or the perception, indosposable in that possition. How many times have you worked with someone senior in position who hold all his/her cards close to their chest, never relinquishing any information. because as long as they are the keeper of information they are superior. Yet after a few years you are their manager! ;)

Then their are those with all the talent, and NFI on how to act, or should I say interact. The only reason they even have a job or are tollerated is their technical prowess, yet they seem to wonder why they are overlooked when it comes time to advance. I wonder.

All in all a good article and a good read.

Articulateness?!?

[sparkz]

What a classic oxymoron!

Re:Articulateness?!?

[stonecypher]

Single words cannot be oxymora.

Software for Grown-Ups

[imnoteddy]

The most bug free software is written by the people who do the Space Shuttle onboard software:

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.ht ml

Re:Software for Grown-Ups

[eclectro]

Great link, but slashdot mangles plaintext urls.

Here is the correct link.

I think that one of the final sentences is telling;

"And money is not the critical constraint: the groups $35 million per year budget is a trivial slice of the NASA pie, but on a dollars-per-line basis, it makes the group among the nation's most expensive software organizations."

Government enviroments (unless it's a contactor) will always have better resources and a more comfortable envirment than a game company (e.g. EA) trying to push stuff (usually crap) out the door.

This is also probably a large part of the motivation of outsourcing software to India (more people working on software for less money).

Whatever Happened to Unions?

[ToAllPointsWest]

I've never understood why the IT industry has been so adverse to Unions? Employers don't value employee rights unless there is a viable threat from a large number of employees suddenly stopping all work. We are long overdue rethinking this position and realize that the phrase, "wage slave" isn't a compliment.

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[ChrisMaple]

I've never understood why the IT industry has been so adverse (sic) to Unions?

Because unions usually force collective bargaining and oppose pay for merit. Programmers are mostly individualists and think that they're worth more than the next guy.

Employers don't value employee rights unless there is a viable threat from a large number of employees suddenly stopping all work.

Some do, some don't. Often employee treatment differs from one manager to the next in the same company.

Unions take money from your paycheck to pay their own staff and to (often illegally) siphon money into left-wing political programs. They are a net drain on the economy.

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[Tablizer]

[I've never understood why the IT industry has been so adverse (sic) to Unions?] Because unions usually force collective bargaining and oppose pay for merit. Programmers are mostly individualists and think that they're worth more than the next guy.

Well how much longer until globalization changes that self-perception? Unions grew during the first half of the century because blue-collar labor was cheap and plentiful. The workers had no individual bargaining power because their skills were a dime-a-dozen. "Professionals" on the other hand were harder to come by and could rely on their relative rareness alone to keep them from being abused.

But globalization has turned brains into a cheap commodity. Asia is cranking out graduates the way that Henry Ford learned how to crank out automobiles, turning cars into a commodity to be had by all instead of the luxury item they were before that.

Unions take money from your paycheck to pay their own staff and to (often illegally) siphon money into left-wing political programs. They are a net drain on the economy.

A small fee is better than zero job. Many other careers have built-in protections. Lawyers have law-school quotas for example to protect them from a flood of cheap foreign legal geniouses. If they can have protection from raw cheap-labor foreign competition, why can't we? Why are ONLY THEY entitled to protection?

Should we have cheap programmers and expensive lawyers? Why? What is the fairness or logic for that? Businesses can lower their costs and sell products for cheaper if their legal rates were lower. And cheaper products are magically going to make us all better off, remember? So, lets globally fuck lawyers also so that our products are cheaper. OKay?

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[xenocide2]

Because Libertarian is the political party of the Internet, and because during the late 90s stock and options as compensation were regular. Are the two related? Possibly. But as long as "the free market is so awesome, and I'm so smart I can rise above current cruft of inept wankers" lives on, and project managers rise from the rank and file, unions won't be taking off any time soon. And certainly, those blue collar workers aren't likely to sympathise about the health costs of sitting in a cubicle for 50 hours a week minimum.

Also the "IT industry" isn't keen on its workers going on strike. Imagine if a CPU processing plant went on strike for a week. Moore's law (that hypothetical boundary that we redefine as the situation changes) generally implies that our hardware is going to be 1 percent faster every week. If that strike has any real purpose, it very well could go on for a month or longer. That's looking at a five percent loss over competitors, which means your product is now painfully difficult to sell, AND you've lost any possible premium pricing potential, not to mention the hit on production you'll take. So the companies that comprise the industry aren't about to sing praise of unions onto US Congressional inqueries.

I hope I've answered your question without implying that I don't exactly like the situation either.

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[/dev/trash]

Trust me. Unions are worthless.

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[God! Awful 2]

I've never understood why the IT industry has been so adverse (sic) to Unions?

s
Because unions usually force collective bargaining and oppose pay for merit. Programmers are mostly individualists and think that they're worth more than the next guy.

Why is this modded "flamebait"? That seemed like a dead-on comment. I have never observed much sympathy for unions among programmers, and an individualistic streak would appear to be the reason.

Now my own insight into the effect of 10+ hour days:

I work at a company where it is the norm for developers to work overtime. On any given day, probably 50% of developers will stay late. Now the question is, will this help or hurt your career.

I can see no evidence of anyone's career being held back because they worked too hard. On the other hand, does it help your career? The answer appears to be yes, but not by very much. Most people get promoted either because they are the most technically competant or because they do the best job of promoting themselves to the boss. Working extra-hard may get you a raise or some stock options, but it won't get you promoted.

The reason is because the people in positions of authority are the ones who are called upon to exercise good judgement. Working overtime is a sign of dedication, but it doesn't do anything to prove why you should be the one to make the tough decisions.

-a

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[StrawberryFrog]

Unions ... are a net drain on the economy.

Absolutely. Unions have campained long and hard for things like a legal upper limit to working hours, minimum wages, occupational health and safety standards, the right not to be fired for being sick, etc, etc, etc. All of these are a net drain on the economy.

"the economy" is not the be-all and end-all. Especially when we say "a net drain on the economy" we might as well say "a net drain on a few people who are rich already".

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[cybergrue]

I've never understood why the IT industry has been so adverse to Unions?

I think it has to do with the fact that IT people are (or more importantly, were) considered professionals (like engineers and architects), both by themselves and their employers. If I recall correctly, there is a legal definition of a 'professional' worker that relates to salary and exemptions from overtime because 'professionals' were deemed to be able to control their working hours. Unfortunately, workaholic managers now consider IT workers akin to technicians that they have a legal right to abuse.

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[autophile]

Many other careers have built-in protections. Lawyers have law-school quotas for example to protect them from a flood of cheap foreign legal geniouses. If they can have protection from raw cheap-labor foreign competition, why can't we? Why are ONLY THEY entitled to protection?

Because THEY can sue your ass to oblivion. What're we gonna do, replace you with a very small shell script?

--Rob

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[Tablizer]

Because THEY can sue your ass to oblivion. What're we gonna do, replace you with a very small shell script?

At least form a lobbying group (PAC). Look how the NRA gets their way (without shooting politicians).

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[stonecypher]

But globalization has turned brains into a cheap commodity.

Briefly, sure. Engineers in California said the same thing after Promontory, when suddenly educated men from the eastern seaboard came flooding into an area which previously had been dominated by prospectors. Suddenly, Californian engineers weren't rare and precious, and in fact weren't even any longer the unquestionable best; nationalization had, in their eyes, made brains a commodity.

Thing is, it didn't last. That people could be shipped place to place didn't change the need for brains, nor did it change the commonality of brains among people; it just more evenly distributed the pressure difference between supply and demand.

An easier example was the inflow of Korean, Thai and Indonesian programmers into Japan in the late 80s, when it was chic for an American to look down their nose at the Japanese resistance to immigrant labor as racist, citing our own history (as if the H1-B sentiments these days are somehow different.) In economic terms, their situation paralleled our own: a wealthy nation with an artificial work shortage created by the collapse of a bubble and the unwillingness of domestic labor to take realistic salaries (my friend is currently bitching that he's leaving a $120k/y web design job for a $100k/y design job; he sits on his ass all day playing video games at work) sees an abundance of bright, educated people in a poorer nation willing to work themselves to the bone in order to get what are to them preposterous foreign salaries. It was as frequent for Indonesians to work five years in Japan and retire wealthy, which Americans thought was smart, as it currently is for Indians to do the same, which Americans think is dirty pool. (Absconding with Japanese economy is witty; with American economy it's cheating instead.)

Lawyers have law-school quotas for example to protect them from a flood of cheap foreign legal geniouses

Uh, no, law schools have quotas to protect their reputations as difficult-to-reach goals, allowing their name to become a point of pride and therefore a valuable commodity when getting a job, in turn allowing the school to inflate the price of tuition drastically. You'll notice that second-rate law schools, such as the law school at your local pretty-good university which doesn't focus on law, rarely has such a quota in an undergraduate program. (Everyone has those quotas on graduate programs, but for different reasons: you really do need to control the number of graduate students, to make sure faculty have the appropriate amount of time to cultivate them into professionals; a faculty member frequently struggles with a third graduate. As my father's a college professor, I'm not speaking from ignorance.)

It's pretty standard issue scarcity tactics to inflate demand and therefore price. Ask a Nintendo sales rep how it works; they are the unchallenged masters of the tactic. (Note please that their central DS factory line was complete in October, and is currently cranking out more DSes per week than were demanded during the holiday season; nonetheless there was a holiday demand so bad that lines were hours long and some people simply couldn't get the toy. There was no need for that; Nintendo had the production capacity to fulfill almost triple the actual demand. However, if they were easy to get, nobody could brag that they had one first, and then fewer kids would want them as a social point, dropping console sales dramatically. This is also the basis of Sony's marketing attack on the Dreamcast, wherein the specs for the PS2 were announced the day before Dreamcast sales opened.)

If they can have protection from raw cheap-labor foreign competition, why can't we?

I'm not sure how capping input into law schools prevents foreign lawyers; you do not need to have gone to law school to take the bar. Any person with a good local library can become a lawyer relatively easily; one of my friends became a patent lawyer in order to register so

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[Tablizer]

and the unwillingness of domestic labor to take realistic salaries

Salaries are generally not negotiable. They are paid based on perceptions, not on supply-and-demand bidding. I bid real low once to get my foot into a new technology. It did not work.

I'm not sure how capping input into law schools prevents foreign lawyers; you do not need to have gone to law school to take the bar.

The BAR is a quota (protection) technique also.

In the form of rationed work visas, rationed immigration, domestic contract quotas, laws governing foreign work distribution, taxes, tariffs, incentives and programs, we have that protection.

Are you suggesting we let every Tom, Dick, and Hari in? Why bother then to have "citizens"? Plus, other countries usually have very strict work visa systems. They don't swing open their gates, so why should we do the same?

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[stonecypher]

Salaries are generally not negotiable. They are paid based on perceptions, not on supply-and-demand bidding.

Programmers are currently discovering that this is not true based on offshoring.

I bid real low once to get my foot into a new technology. It did not work.

Perhaps you ought to look for other explanations.

The BAR is a quota (protection) technique also.

The hell are you talking about? Anyone may take the bar whenever they want to. The results are scored by mail, and there is neither a limit on how many people pass, nor is passing graded or ratioed in any way. It's no more a quota technique than a driver's license is: it's just "this test says you know what you're talking about well enough to do this for a living."

Are you suggesting we let every Tom, Dick, and Hari in?

Given that that's the founding principle of this nation, yes, that's exactly what I suggest.

Why bother then to have "citizens"?

Just because they have to be recorded for purposes of taxation and census doesn't mean that we should start denying people entrance into the nation. There are many good reasons to have citizens. Maybe you didn't realize it, but you can live in this country, be born in this country, never leave this country, and still not be a citizen; certain classes of criminal, for example, are not citizens at all, once convicted, even once released from prison (many classes of felon cannot vote, lose many citizen's rights, and so on.)

What is the purpose of being a citizen in a democracy? In order be part of the system. This is what allows us to drive our government, rather than to be driven by it. It is statistically unlikely, not to mention based on your seeming failure to grasp legal immigration, that you're Native American in whole; as a result, oh ye of
"why do they get this but we don't," just remember that you're two or three generations behind that Hari you just mentioned, and that chances are some Victorian Brit was asking whether your parents really needed to be here either.

Plus, other countries usually have very strict work visa systems.

Are you unable to read? As the post you just replied to clearly states, the US work visa system is quite a bit stricter than that of almost any other nation in the world. Before going off half-cocked stating things you dont' know as fact, go look it up.

They don't swing open their gates

Name two countries whose immigration or work restrictions are stricter than those of the US after 9/11, which don't have such reasons because of war.

so why should we do the same?

"Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" sound even remotely familiar? Who are you to rewrite what this country is based on?

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[Tablizer]

Perhaps you ought to look for other explanations.

I have. My conclusion is that when companies hire, they have a specific profile in mind and look for a candidate to fit that profile. Someone who seems too cheap or too expensive is filtered out. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is where all the evidence seems to point.

[The BAR is a quota (protection) technique also.] The hell are you talking about? Anyone may take the bar whenever they want to.

Yes, but they adjust the difficulty over time to suit their quantity needs. And, I don't think it is available to non-citizens (but may be wrong on that).

[Are you suggesting we let every Tom, Dick, and Hari in?] Given that that's the founding principle of this nation, yes, that's exactly what I suggest.

We would then have a population of like 5 billion.

Name two countries whose immigration or work restrictions are stricter than those of the US after 9/11

Just because you have more background checks does not necessarily means it is more restrictive. The vast majority pass the security screening. It is just a delay over what it used to be like.

"Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" sound even remotely familiar? Who are you to rewrite what this country is based on?

Immigration and visa workers are two different things. Besides, if the citizens become tired huddled masses themselves, they will eventually revolt.

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Lawyers have law-school quotas for example to protect them from a flood of cheap foreign legal geniouses.

Brazil and the WTO have something to say about that one- Lawyers in the United States are about to get hit with a cheap labor flood.

Re:Whatever Happened to Unions?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thing is, it didn't last. That people could be shipped place to place didn't change the need for brains, nor did it change the commonality of brains among people; it just more evenly distributed the pressure difference between supply and demand.

Two centuries from now, true, this will all be over. But for now, IIT is graduating top-of-the-world respect CS students at 50,000 a year- more than enough to replace American IS/IT completely three years from now (of course they won't- Germany, England, and Japan are outsourcing as fast as we are, and we have to compete with them for $2.50/hr coders, but you get the picture). Hope you can live on $2.50/hr, bud.

Morals without reasons

[CaptainCarrot]

From the article: "I don't believe people should do things for reasons they don't understand--things like looking healthy, eating spinach, or avoiding GO TO statements. Rules without reasons focus on the appearance of things, not the substance."

No, rules without reasons help a person develop healthy habits and to benefit from them before he learns the reasons for them. That can come in its own good time.

It rarely does any good to try to explain to a child why he should eat his spinach, you just get him to eat it. By the time he understands why it's good for him he's in the habit of eating it and has benefited from the nutrition in the meantime.

A novice programmer might not understand why GOTOs are to be reserved for a small number of special situations, but you impose standards enforced via peer review that makes him avoid them when unnecessary anyway. By the time he understands why they're undesireable he's accustomed to coding without them to the point where it's become second nature, and in the meantime the code he's written is more maintainable by others.

Insisting that people learn the reasons for moral (or otherwise desireable) behavior before they adopt those behaviors is simply not workable in the real world.

Re:Morals without reasons

[stonecypher]

"I don't believe people should do things for reasons they don't understand--things like looking healthy, eating spinach, or avoiding GO TO statements. Rules without reasons focus on the appearance of things, not the substance."

No, rules without reasons help a person develop healthy habits and to benefit from them before he learns the reasons for them. That can come in its own good time.

The mantra of indocrination everywhere.

It rarely does any good to try to explain to a child why he should eat his spinach

Don't confuse explanation with convincing. It's one thing to tell a child to eat his spinach because it's got vitamins and iron whether he wants to or not; entirely another to tell him to eat his spinach without telling him why.

By the time he understands why it's good for him he's in the habit of eating it

Honestly, if you have a hard time explaining "this has vitamins which you need to grow" to a five year old, you need a Doctor Spock book or three.

A novice programmer might not understand why GOTOs are to be reserved for a small number of special situations, but you impose standards enforced via peer review that makes him avoid them when unnecessary anyway.

Yes yes, and this seems like a perfectly rational viewpoint. The problem is, it's not; this is an exposition of bias, and whether or not there's a real underlying motive, at best it's nothing more than an enthymeme.

Besides, the fact of the matter is that people are just sometimes wrong. If you refuse to expose your reasoning, then you also deny the person being controlled their oppoirtunity and right to suggest counterpoints or alternatives. Consider for example the first game I wrote for a cellular phone development firm: they simply told me that I was not to use C++. It being a new job I simply rolled over. However, as time went on, as is typical, it became more and more obvious that the lack of proper encapsulation was helping certain of my coworkers retard my code up something proper. Eventually I took the employer, who'd set himself up in mch the same manner as you've set yourself up, to task on the issue; I got him to admit that the issue was supposedly efficiency, and proceeded on my own time to perform a proper code seperation. The application was actually very slightly (insignificantly) faster, presumably due to the compiler being able to make some obscure tiny optimization somewhere based on new knowledge.

In my admittedly limited experience, it has been the case that people which set limits without explaining them generally do not understand the limits, and as a corrolary effect have usually picked them up by hearing them repeated by other supposedly clueful people.

In fact, in my experience, frequently the people which repeat these mantras think that just being aware that there is such a principle is what creates clue. But, if you ask them to justify why gotos are bad, they tend to flounder: "because, well, it breaks the, uh, path of flow of the function, and, er, because they're just bad form, everybody knows it, god, just do your work." I've been aware of and annoyed by this principle for quite some time now; it's become my habit to attempt to catch people in it. Unfortunately, I only know how to catch people in conversation, and I don't feel like rereading this thread, so I'll just show you how it works.

Start by saying "GOTOs aren't really that bad, though. People just use them in broken ways." When the response is inevitably "yeah, GOTOs are bad because people use them wrong," say "No, no: I mean, people just write bugs with GOTO. It's hard to use it in a capital-B bad way which isn't just incorrect." When they insist that's not true, ask them for an example.

When they tell you they don't have time to write the code, then grab the GOTO fascicle from Dewhurst and ask them if they think th

Re:Morals without reasons

[CaptainCarrot]

I don't have time to respond you your entire diatribe, except to say you're coming from a remakably naive point of view. I can tell a 5-year-old that his spinach has vitamins that will help him grow, and he'll eat it for that reason? Do you actually think 5-year-olds are motivated by rationalisms, and that by giving him a reason he doesn't really understand (no, sorry, 5-year-olds don't understand nutrition) he'll do something he doesn't want to? Don't be ridiculous. Talk to me after you've had one or two of your own.

There's a difference between refusing to explain your reasoning, and realizing that an explanation won't achieve your goals. Certainly you should be forthcoming if it's appropriate. But there are situations where it's not helpful. What I left unstated in my very brief mention of GOTOs was that I had in mind beginning instruction. You'd think that this is the time when you'd most want to explain your reasoning, but how much will that really mean to a room full of high-school students half of which are only in the course to fill out their schedules? You could explain until you're blue in the face and you'll only make an impression on a minority. It's more worthwhile to save it for the advanced classes where the students actually give a damn.

If you read my post more carefully anyway, you'll find I suggested nothing like a blanket "harrass[ment](!)" of GOTOs. You've obviously read me through some kind of prejudicial filter, which you're going to have to put aside if you want a rational conversation. If that's not what you want -- well, this is Slashdot. I'm not shocked.

As to why I mentioned morals, RTFA please. But it's very amusing to hear you contrast humanistic morality with religion and tell me the former has reasons while the latter doesn't. That just says to me you know very little about religion. On the other hand, I've questioned a number of atheists over the years about the reasoned or philosophical grounds for their moral code and not one of them could give me a coherent answer. Can you? (Perhaps you can, and I've just been talking with unusually unthoughtful atheists. I have an open mind on the possibility of a genuine, well-reasoned atheist morality. Just because I've never found one, despite years of looking, doesn't mean it can't exist.)

I'm not sure why you assume I'm particularly young. I know what Slashdot's demographic is like, but I've also encountered enough outliers to not make that assumption about anyone without good reason. I'm not particularly old either. My first professional programming experience was on CP/M machines back when they were mainstream.

Re:Morals without reasons

[aphor]

I've questioned a number of atheists over the years about the reasoned or philosophical grounds for their moral code and not one of them could give me a coherent answer. Can you?

Let me pose an example for you because I believe you are asking for it :) I am Buddhist. That means that I have dogmatically accepted that enlightenment is possible, or that I have actually had such a mystic experience and no longer require the dogma. Besides that, the religion is, AFAICT, devoid of any dogma. In Buddhism, God is a possibility, but to quote Wayne and Garth (and remind us how little meaning there is in the bare possibility of something) "monkeys might fly out of my butt."

Some would say that is Atheist, or Agnosticism, but I say it is indifference. In any case, there is no theological basis for the highly reasoned and philosophical grounds for Buddhist morality. Therefore, I think that I can pose Buddhism as an actual example of an atheistic (meaning the absence of belief in God) reasoned and philosophical morality.

I will not attempt to post the whole dharma here, but I will provide you with a list of the elemental concepts in Buddhist morality.

• Anicca (impermanence)
• Anatta (no-soul)
• The 5 Skandhas (reality as aggregation)
• The Four Noble Truths (essential Buddhism)
  1. Dukkha (suffering)
  2. Samudaya (suffering arising)
  3. Nirodha (suffering passing)
  4. Magga (the Noble Eightfold Path)

1. The Noble Eightfold Path
2. Samma Ditti (right view/mood, beginner's mind)
3. Samma Sankappa (right intention)
4. Samma Vaca (right speech)
5. Samma Kammanta (right action)
6. Samma ajiva (right livelihood)
7. Samma Vayama (right effort)
8. Samma Sati (right mindfulness)
9. Samma Samadhi (right concentration)

There is no God in any of this, however you can tell with a cursory look at these lists, that it at least attempts to be comprehensive. With more research, the connections between these and other concepts of Buddhist cosomology become apparent. Again, no God, but highly reasoned and philosophical. If God wanted people to become enlightened, but his appearance would inhibit human enlightenment, then God would become non-apparent. Even accepting the ultimate verity of God, enlightenment requires a Buddhist to let go of any attatchment to God. Equally, disbelief in God is also a stumbling block to enlightenment.

Besides Buddhism, which I (obviously) think is a beautiful system, there are western systems of ethics based ultimately on pleasure and pain and moralities that come out of their contemplation are reasoned, and not necessarily theistic.

Re:Morals without reasons

[CaptainCarrot]

I wasn't thinking of Buddhism when I said "atheist" primarily because the ethics it advocates are found in the form of dogmas. This means they're based on revealed truths regardless of the source of the revelation. In other words, they're founded on principles directly based on the experiences of the enlightened, and not reasoned from some set of first principles. Perhaps "materialist" would have been a better word than "atheist".

I'm familiar with western non-theistic ethical systems having surveyed a number of them back in school. We covered all the major philosophers from Plato to Sartre and Wittgenstein. There was little agreement among them as to even what "the good" is, let alone how to achieve it. Part of the method of the class was a dialogue between the professor and the students. The professor had an interesting method: she would get a sense for the consensus opinion of the class and then argue against it, whatever it was (and I'm sure, in some cases, contrary to her personal opinions.) The fact that one side or the other was always -- always able to puncture whatever ethical system was under discussion is part of what led me to my conclusion.

This is moot in any event. No materialist I've ever spoken with has ever referred to any of these systems.

Re:Morals without reasons

[stonecypher]

I don't have time to respond you your entire diatribe

You wrote five long paragraphs after saying this. Smells like an excuse to me; this is quite nicely fortified by that you've ignored every single criticism I've made of you, hoping instead to just talk about things you want to discuss and to ignore the earlier ignorances you floated, as if you're unable to face what you said. This is fortified by the argumentum ad hominem which follows. Luckily, I'm under no such restriction.

I can tell a 5-year-old that his spinach has vitamins that will help him grow, and he'll eat it for that reason?

I never said that. All I said was that it was your responsibility to explain edicts that you give to others. (That said, my child at five years old listened to me when I told her things. Maybe that's because I took the time to treat her like an intelligent individual, capable of grasping concepts like "spinach is good for you," which honestly isn't that difficult.)

Do you actually think 5-year-olds are motivated by rationalisms

When you treat them rationally when raising them, yes. I've got two kids that came out just fine that way. Naive as you may think it, it's also drawn from experience.

and that by giving him a reason he doesn't really understand (no, sorry, 5-year-olds don't understand nutrition)

Maybe yours doesn't. Stop treating him or her like an idiot, and things might change. "Hey daddy, why is that man fat?" "Because he eats too much and of the wrong things. That's why I keep making you eat the spinach." That said, spinach is actually pretty good, if you know better than to overcook it; my five year old never actually fought the issue. At all. Ever.

Talk to me after you've had one or two of your own.

I already did, captain guesses a lot.

There's a difference between refusing to explain your reasoning, and realizing that an explanation won't achieve your goals.

Fatalism doesn't excuse you from proper behavior.

Certainly you should be forthcoming if it's appropriate.

At any point you've given someone a command, an explanation is not only appropriate, but ethically required.

You'd think that this is the time when you'd most want to explain your reasoning, but how much will that really mean to a room full of high-school students half of which are only in the course to fill out their schedules?

Quite a bit. As the son of a college professor, I'm intimately familiar with the lives of a number of students whose lives were changed by finding out that a curricular requirement turned out to be their life's drive.

That said, none of this is important. If you really think that you're excused from standing up for the things you say just because you doubt explanations will do any good, well, then I understand the tone you've taken with the rest of this letter, guessing about whether I ahve children and so forth; frankly you're contemptuous. If you give a thousand commands and explain them all, and if only one of those explanations gets through to someone, then you've still done good, at the cost of ten or fifteen seconds of being an adult after being pompous.

You could explain until you're blue in the face and you'll only make an impression on a minority.

This is a non-sequitor: the issue is your ethical requirements, not their upshots.

If you read my post more carefully anyway, you'll find I suggested nothing like a blanket "harrass[ment](!)" of GOTOs.

You didn't have to suggest it: you began the harassment yourself by simply blanket stating that they're wrong, which is simply incorrect, no matter how many ways you want to spin it as a different issue.

It's more worthwhile to save it for the advanced classes where the students actually give a damn.

Has it ever dawned on you that the reason nob

Re:Morals without reasons

[stonecypher]

Perhaps "materialist" would have been a better word than "atheist".

As someone which you accuse of being unfamiliar with religion, it is my great joy to teach you simple words like "agnostic," "skeptic," "praxist," "platonicist," "idealist" and "realist." A materialist is someone fascinated with ownership and wealth. Get a dictionary.

I'm familiar with western non-theistic ethical systems having surveyed a number of them back in school.

And yet you don't know what a skeptic is?

We covered all the major philosophers from Plato to Sartre and Wittgenstein.

Somehow I doubt that: both Sartre and Wittgenstein put quite a bit of effort into seperating atheism, agnosticism, theism, seminarianism, realism and materialism. Anyone which actually read either of those two authors wouldn't have made the egregious error above. (Besides, Wittgenstein is hardly one of the major philosophers of his day.)

There was little agreement among them as to even what "the good" is

Sartre was famous for stating that there was no such thing as "the good," something with which Wittgenstein agreed. Plato believed that Good was an ideal created by belief systems and relegated to the plane of ideals. None of those three authors you claim to have read support this statement in any way.

The professor had an interesting method: she would get a sense for the consensus opinion of the class and then argue against it

That's called the Socratian method. If you're as familiar with philosophers as you claim to be, you'll recognize that this is the principle on which Plato formalized The Academy, having learned the Socratian method from Aristotle. Read some Empedoxles, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Eumenides or Leucippus for fundamental clue. Democritus was famous for disagreeing so strongly with this method that while developing Leucippian Atomism he went to the kings of each Mycenae and Macedon attempting to prevent the spread of the method, suggesting that it was a mechanism of aesthesis rather than noesis, and that conceptual ideals (which he later crystallized into idols) were the more appropriate way to forward concepts.

This is moot in any event. No materialist I've ever spoken with has ever referred to any of these systems.

That's because materialists are investment bankers. Still, given that you probably meant agnostics, let's point out that yes, agnostics rarely hinge their beliefs on Buddhism, or in fact any other faith; since you claim to have studied Sartre, you will realize how damning this tautology is.

Of course, being a bastard, I'm more inclined to suppose that this is another instance of the Spotlight Fallacy, in which reasonable people refuse to talk to zealots like you.

Re:Morals without reasons

[CaptainCarrot]

You're a very silly person.

Yes, I can write 5 long paragraphs and still not have time to reply point by point to these astonishingly lengthy rants of yours. Nor do I have time to respond to this one.

And just because your silly remarks about CP/M is right on my screen here -- it's the only part of your rant I can see as I type -- Sorry, but I was there. I worked for a small VAR that provided custom, or customized, applications among their services. I worked on several CP/M systems for several different customers, but there was only one MP/M installation we supported that I know of. Perhaps I had a myopic view of the business, but at least it was a real view, and I'm not making anything up. When programming in CBASIC there was little practical difference between them anyway. (No, I don't expect that to impress you, but that's what nearly everything I saw for CP/M was written in, from games to business apps.)

Your guesswork about my opinions and experiences is almost completely wrong, but you probably never check your assumptions against reality, do you? Certitude is so much easier that way.

Re:Morals without reasons

[CaptainCarrot]

A materialist is someone fascinated with ownership and wealth. Get a dictionary.

What, like this one?

materialism 1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. I meant exactly what I said.

Since the rest of your post reveals you were unaware of this primary meaning of materialism and that you were using it exclusively as what that dictionary lists as the third definition, there's little reason for me to address the rest of what you say based on it. Regardless of your educational background, this doesn't give me much of a sense that you know what you're talking about.

Can you even read? I mentioned that there's little agreement among philosophers as to what constitutes "the Good". You reply by listing the widest possible divergence of opinion and then telling me it shows I was wrong. (You seem to think Plato regarded the ideal plane to be unreal. He actually considered it more real than the material.)

There were also a lot of writers between those I mentioned, with different opinions yet.

That's called the Socratian method.

What you're thinking of is more often called the "Socratic method" but that's not what she used. I didn't say she led the class by questioning and I don't know why you'd read that in. It was more of a dialectic. It wasn't really a Hegelian approach though, since if there was a synthesis to be formed she left it up to the individual students and didn't force it.

he went to the kings of each Mycenae and Macedon attempting to prevent the spread of the method,

I'm not terribly familiar with Democritus other than a bare outline of his philosophy, but I do know that Mycenae had been a ruin for over 500 years before he was born and certainly had no king in his lifetime. Check your facts before you start preaching next time.

Re:Morals without reasons

[stonecypher]

You're a very silly person.

It would be pleasant if you would stop with the personal attacks. That's three posts in a row that you've made unfounded disparaging comments, and given the ignorance you've shown of the various topics you've claimed to have studied, I think I've been quite generous.

Nor do I have time to respond to this one.

How convenient for you.

it's the only part of your rant I can see as I type

Presumably because you haven't the fortitude of character to read the rest, for fear of having to face being shown the door in no uncertain terms? It doesn't take very long to read a screen page of text. You're not fooling anyone: maybe you didn't realize it, but slashdot tracks the time of your posts. You were on the site for at least half an hour after you "didn't have time to respond" in both instances.

Spare me telling me you don't have time to reply in your next reply: if you've got nothing to say, stop saying it.

Re:Morals without reasons

[CaptainCarrot]

That's true. It would have taken me at least twice as long to reply point-by-point to your entire rant in a reasoned way. I know you didn't bother with a reasoned response yourself, but I don't do angry sermons as well as you do.

It's really a laugh when you say, "top with the personal attacks" and follow it up with "you haven't the fortitude of character to read the rest." Have you ever considered the possibility that you're just tiresome?

Well, I have to admit you're more sophisticated than most trolls, but like all trolls you cease to be amusing after a while. Respond further if you like; I won't bother reading. Neither will anyone else at this point.

Attack Symptoms? Set Your Priorities First

[buckhead_buddy]

• Many school teachers find their reward in working with pupils rather than large salaries or advancing in administrative roles.
• Directors like Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings) find their satisfaction in telling their story rather than advancing in superficial Hollywood circles or sleeping every day.
• Many nurses and medical technicians are attracted more to the ability to heal and ease others physical pain than large doctor salaries or authoring articles for journals
• Many same-sex couples find the loving bond of a relationship to be worth the social stigma, lack of legal recognition, and difficulty in producing off-spring.

While this fellow makes some good points as to how to "fit in" to the superficial business world, a wise person will sit down and decide whether fitting in will actually help in advancing the goals and satisfactions of their life. It's fortunate that different people have different goals and if you need the money of a tech lead or team manager to meet yours then definitely pay attention to this advice. But if your goals and life priorities are different, think about what you can do to help meet them and whether or not this advice still applies.

Re:Attack Symptoms? Set Your Priorities First

[xouumalperxe]

the article seemed to me to be mostly about one small point: you'll be far better off if you keep yourself healthy. It's not a matter of being accepted per se. It's noting that 1. being accepted is a great big part of rising in whatever area you work in and 2. being (and looking) healthy go a great way towards being accepted. Hence 3. Being healthy is rather fine start towards whatever other aim you might have.

Re:Attack Symptoms? Set Your Priorities First

[buckhead_buddy]

the article seemed to me to be mostly about one small point: you'll be far better off if you keep yourself healthy. It's not a matter of being accepted per se. It's noting that 1. being accepted is a great big part of rising in whatever area you work in and 2. being (and looking) healthy go a great way towards being accepted. Hence 3. Being healthy is rather fine start towards whatever other aim you might have.

That message I read was much more about appearance of health and normality. Cultivate the quick stride, fresh appearance, and tone of superb physical health. were just one of the many bits of Oprah-esque advice that's more about making an impression than making a difference in your life or health.

He uses Russel's philosophy to support his arguments. I'm not as familiar with Russel but "meeting your physical needs" is also the first level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and he presents a very convincing theory that you'll never reach self-fulfillment without sating your physical needs first. If you google on this topic you'll find a lot of people who write that Maslow is full of it in much more well developed ways than you'll find arguments against this article.

But here are a couple of ideas...

• Sating your own physical needs doesn't always mean meeting them. Ghandi's hunger strikes would have been somewhat less fulfilling if he'd visited some all-you-can-eat buffets. Religious fasting for spiritual fulfillment is common in many cultures and contrary to the idea that you must be physically fulfilled before you can seek fulfillment in other ways.
• The article encourages stopping annoying but non-harmful habits such as nail biting but doesn't mention something like hand washing after going to the toilet. I work for myself and though I have to deal with other people, I don't find nail-biting or having a quick stride to have an effect on me. I do find that much of the other conformist advice to be good when meeting with the loan manager or clients, but those are secondary goals to the ones in my life. Things like hand washing would be much more universally applicable even to more isolated folk like myself.

Personally, I find that this fellow isn't necessarilly wrong. I have found that I really have to put effort in to maintaining my physical health (especially with high med costs being self-employed now). It's more the angle he's taking in supporting his argument that I find to be undermining his point. He just assumes that you want the same goals as he does.

Would Richard Stallman make more persuasive arguments if he presented himself in a suit and tie with a dapper, banker appearance? Yes. Would Richard Stallman be a better programmer by putting on the same airs? Not a bit. If Mr. Stallman's goal is to be a persuasive demagogue then he might be better off changing superficialities about himself. If his goal in only being a good programmer then habits such as nail biting and quick strides don't really matter as much IMHO.

Would 28 hours per day be enough?

[mrchaotica]

If so, you could try switching to the six day week. I'd try it myself if my school and job were flexible enough...

Sales is where it is at, dude.

[NotQuiteReal]

I don't care how 1337 (elite) your h4x0r (programming) skills are.

Some slick, neanderthal IQ-ed, suck-up (with good hair) is going to make more than you. Why? Because companies spend money to engineer goods, but make money selling them! What? do you want to earn a percentage of what you cost?

BTW, I am still "in engineering", but now I am self-employed, so I probably make twice as much as you. I am solely in sales since I have morals (which is ironic, since I have no religion).

Re:Sales is where it is at, dude.

[Black Acid]

I am solely in sales since I have morals (which is ironic, since I have no religion).

That's not ironic. Morals can exist without an omniescent being dictating them.

Re:Sales is where it is at, dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

despite the inflammatory tone you do have a point about sales. the typical slashdotter seems to have it in for business in general. they fail to realize that everyone makes money by selling something. the large majority of stuff sold is influenced selling as well... in other words the people purchasing it do not have an actual need for it. they are given a *perceived* need for it by slick advertising and marketing.

slashdotters seem to disagree with marketing as well, yet if we only produced and sold what was needed then we would have food and shelter and little more. computers are hardly a need (though they are now, since we have come to depend on them...) and once were sold by their slick, yet disagreeable marketing.

Re:Sales is where it is at, dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine with me.

I've worked as a software engineer for organizations with sales people that range from "great" to "nonexistent". The organization with the nonexistent sales force, FSF, didn't pay me any money, although I got lots of other rewards (including subsequent jobs based on that work).

So my choices are:

(1) Do a job I like with no sales people and no deadlines and no money.

(2) Do a job I like with sales people that get more salary, stock, and bonuses that I do, but I still get plenty.

(3) Switch to a job that I don't like and would probably not be as good at, in exchange for more money.

Re:Sales is where it is at, dude.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moral and religion are non coupled variables. One factor is the "Get out of sin"-card granted by some religions. Another is that breaking the first commandment, putting mammon highest, seams to be legio among them who says they are the most religious.

An extrovert modded this down

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious.

Aryan Nation

[lemongrass]

G-d forbid you're disabled, or you even just appear unhealthy, or maybe people just see you as ugly. You can forget about that promotion, you're not worthy. Whatever happened to judging people on performance? Nah, that's too easy, we need another managment fad of the week instead.

Better colours

[Anonymous Coward]

http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/09/2 220220

Worked for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've followed his advise.

Indeed, I polished up the brass so carefully
that now I am the Captain of the Queen's Navy.

Morbidly Obese

[oldCoder]

Compulsive coding and compulsive eating might just work together. You've fallen for the body-image cult promulgated by a conspiracy of Hollywood moguls and the Personal Trainers Cabal.

The moguls want us to watch their movies about thin people and the trainers want us to hire them to get trim. It's all a conspiracy.

Working long hours and geing a geek is fun!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays, a lot of people are expected to work long hours......but!! it's allways fun to be a geek and spend those "long hours" working on projects, that's how you have fun and accomplish things, it's too bad that the computer world is so standardized to lame cycles of corporate product upgrades etc.

As far as getting old, hey, if you liked the PC computer revolution, you ain't seen nothing yet..just support the next breakthrough...the new biotech/nanotech breakthroughs in life extention!!! (see the Jan 2005 issue of popular science magazine).

The next hacker revolution will be hacking cells and slowing/stopping/reversing ageing so that ageless 5000 year life-spans will the normal and you can go on muching/slurping coke/pepsi and hack projects and not worry about your body packing it in! (besides, hacking/overclocking our brains could be really cool too), just imagine how much more work you could do and your brain implants could tell you how to act around all those corporate types (so you don't hurt your bonuses etc.) until you can get away from them back to the hacking again.

Re:Working long hours and geing a geek is fun!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays, a lot of people are expected to work long hours......

Those who are "expected" to work long hours are bad at interviews. Whenever I'm asked at an interview, I state: "I work 35 hours max per week, and that includes all my web surfing." Then I proceed to voluntarily put in extra hours for the (rare) company that hires me... as long as they're cool and I like the project I'm working on.

Bleeding Edge Philosophy

[aphor]

I disagree with the statement "the ethics it[Buddhism] advocates are found in the form of dogmas. This means they're based on revealed truths regardless of the source of the revelation." The ethics in Buddhism are based on moral ambiguity. Buddhism assumes that choices, by default, are not subjected to moral scrutiny, and that mental culture must be applied to have knowledge of one's own morality. The essential imperative in Buddhist ethics is based on the assumption of a whole spectrum of moral awareness from oblivity to enlightenment, and that the general quality of one's moral decisions is directly proportional to one's moral awareness. In the purest, and most abstract sense, most Buddhist imperatives are derived from this position. The question of whether morality is even relevant (and one's authentic moral effect) is, IMHO, such a 'first principle'.

Zen Buddhists believe, rather than contemplating hypothetical moral choices, discovering one's own authenticity (being in the present) has priority to all else in one's ability to make moral choices. Thus, priority is given to developing one's own mental discipline towards understanding one's own opportunity and volition. Once one understands that one is making choices, then and only then can morality become reality. Otherwise one's morality (and ethical system) is hypothetical, and largely moot. The principles, to which you attribute Buddhism's dogmatic ethical foundations, are explicitly denounced in Buddhist texts as crutches that will eventually prevent one from walking on one's own if not discarded at the right time. The reasoned set of 'First Principles' is the Buddhist 'Four Noble Truths'. There is one first principle in Buddhism, but it takes a swipe at the foundations of Western Philosophy since Aristotle, and is therefore a pretty involved topic in itself.

The problem with this is that Western Philosophy is taught as an objective discipline, with cartesian objectivity (and duality) as an implied cardinal tenet. What cannot be objectively discussed is objectively dismissed. If you only got to Sartre and Wittgenstein, then you missed out on the last great thrust from Hegel to Husserl to Heidegger. Sartre hints at a way of discussing subjective reality (existens) with his dichotomy of por soi (for-itself) versus en soi (in-itself) entities. To really begin to be able to discuss objective Philosophy and subjective Philosophy in the same conversation (productively), one must use or surpass the (obtusely presented and seldom understood) methods proposed by Heidegger in Sein und Zeit (Being and Time). The reason (IMHO) "There was little agreement among them as to even what 'the good' is, let alone how to achieve it" is that they had not established a good enough epistemology (What is Knowledge and Truth?) to provide adequate foundation for cohesive ethics. Taking this discussion further is a venture onto the bleeding edge of Philosophy.

Re:Bleeding Edge Philosophy

[CaptainCarrot]

I disagree with the statement "the ethics it[Buddhism] advocates are found in the form of dogmas. This means they're based on revealed truths regardless of the source of the revelation."

"Dogma" was your word, not mine. I was just taking you at your word. A dogma is an expression or a formulation of a revealed truth, a kerygma. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but perhaps "dogma" wasn't the word you were looking for. I don't claim to be an expert on Buddhism and was basing what I said on my understanding of what you said.

However, I don't know that we actually have much clash here. Certainly, true moral behavior must follow internal understanding consistent with an individual's growth. (If I've restated this accurately.) But to begin with I was thinking more pragmatically. For a society to be able to function its members must behave to some minimum moral standard, whether or not the individual members of that society have reached the point you're describing. This is pretty much what I was talking about when I mentioned teaching moral/healthy/intelligent behavior and letting the reasons (or better in this case, true moral judgement) come later. However, I would tend to agree with the Buddhist idea you're explaining about the potential harm in such an "external" morality -- perhaps on other grounds since I'm not familiar with the reasons given in the texts.

No, we got to Heidegger. But to be honest, it's been more than 20 years since I read many of these people and I'm mainly remembering the impression I got at the time. It was, as you say, the problem of epistemology. But I'd have to do some catch-up reading to remember the exact issues right now.

Dogma in the Dharma

[aphor]

I (somewhat) agree with "A dogma is an expression or a formulation of a revealed truth," but what I claim is that 90% of Buddhism can be communicated and argued, the same way you and I are exchanging ideas, without direct revelation or experience or faith.

Re:Dogma in the Dharma

[CaptainCarrot]

The WP article is not entirely correct. It might be used without qualification in the sense they're describing outside Christianity -- and that, perhaps, is the sense in which I ought to have understood you -- but within Eastern Christianity, at least, it has the specific technical meaning I gave you. I left out the "authoritative" part because it's of secondary importance. The underlying truth (perhaps inadequately expressed in language) must be present beforehand. IOW, the primary characteristic of a dogma isn't the authority behind it, but the Truth it's intended to express. So the article puts its emphasis in the wrong place from my point of view.

This is not to say that all the kerygma is expressed dogmatically. (Kerygma isn't as abstract as I may be making it sound. It literally means "preaching", and as I'm using it here it refers to the original preaching of Christ to his Apostles, and of his Apostles to everyone else. It might be equivalent to dharma, if I understand that word correctly in the Buddhist sense.) For much of it an authoritative expression has not been found to be necessary, which simply means there are a variety of expressions that adequately convey it and no one precise formulation is needed.

Re:Dogma in the Dharma

[aphor]

I'm not familliar with the term Kerygma, and I think it would be best to qualify any specialized expressions of a term (like Dogma, in the Kerygma sense) which means something significantly different in common American English. I don't feel that I understand your point entirely, and I think you may be in the same position regarding my explanation of Dharma.

I found this definition of Kerygma which gives a greek etmology for the "preaching" definition you give. I'm not sure why it is useful to use a greek term which is so easily represented by an equivalent english word. Even more befuddling, it seems that you (and the Christian Theological academic corpus) have an even more specialized meaning for Kerygma, as a proper noun, titling a selection of biblical texts. In order to understand the difference (and common ground) between your interperetation of "dogma" and mine, I think I may need a little help understanding the link between Kerygma and "dogma." Read on and decide for yourself.

In Buddhism, there are three institutions, collectively called the "triple jewel". One is the Buddha, or the abstraction of an enligtened being. Anyone can be a Buddha. Buddhists strive to be buddhas. All beings are buddhas. The second is the Dharma, or the teachings of the buddhas. Whatever a buddha transmits to any other being that helps them towards enlightenment is Dharma, but originally it is the Suttas (the Buddhist equivalent to the Bible), and minimally it is the Four Noble Truths. The third jewel is the Sangha, which means the community of all living beings, but more specifically those that are on their way to enlightenment.

The first jewel is the only thing that a buddhist must accept without actual experience: that there are, and have been, and will be enlightened beings that will help another to become enlightened. The Dharma is formally the traditional Buddhist teachings, and informally can be almost any teaching. It does not require faith or assumption of its truth. Dharma is self-apparent the way any normal experience is apparent (not dogma). The Sangha is also apparent, in that participating in practical buddhist activities in the presence of others creates a community, and the potential to experience Sangha is always present when there are other beings present (not dogma).

If you followed me this far, maybe there isn't enough difference in our uses of the word "dogma" to make an issue. Attempting to put what I have to say in your words: the only "preaching" to accept in Buddhism is the actuality of enlightened beings, if one has never actually met or experienced the eminent peace and benevolence of such an individual. If one meets a buddha, or if one becomes enlightened, then the facticity of enlightenment is apparent, and there is no more dogma in Buddhism. The ethical system, and its imperatives however, survive this transcendence--which (returning to my original reply) is how I arrive at Buddhism as an example of a cohesive ethics without dogma or 'given' truths.

Re:Dogma in the Dharma

[CaptainCarrot]

Yes, it's temptingly easy to get tangled up in terminology. Part of the difficulty you're going to have looking these things up on the Internet is that I'm coming from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, which is a very small minority of English-speaking Christians, so most of what you're going to find won't reflect my meaning exactly. (For example, we rarely apply it exclusively to a Biblical text. Eastern Orthodoxy is much more receptive to oral tradition than most of Western Christianity.)

If you understand what a Roman Catholic means when he talks about the "Apsotolic Deposit", that's close to what I mean by "kerygma" here in the specific sense I intend. What we lack is a doctrine of "dogmatic development" which is why I can't draw an exact equivalence.

I do think we're using "dogma" differently though. As I said, the fundamental attribute of a dogma is that it's the truth. I would think the truth is true whether one is enlightened or not, and it makes little difference whether or not one is apprehending it directly or by mere intellectual understanding. So, although they're always true and therefore never go away no matter how advanced one is, there may come a point where they're no longer necessary for an individual's instruction. (Although such people are always the most lovingly insistent on their truth.)

Do I understand you correctly to mean that Dharma is self-evident to a buddha? I say this because if it were self-evident to everyone, it wouldn't need to be taught. (It is, for example, nothing like self-evident to me.) But here we run into problems of terminology again: What I mean by enlightenment, in a Christian context, is very different from what you mean by it in a Buddhist context. For you it's how you describe the goal, for us it's how we describe setting your foot upon the beginning of the path. Our goal is called by various names, but one of the more common for it is "theosis". (Based on what has been said by those who have acheived it, it doesn't sound all that much like Buddhist enlightenment.) Such people have, by sacrificing the self, voluntarily conformed their wills to the Divine will. This does not necessarily mean they have immediate access to all truth (although they do have what we call "the one thing needful") but they are able to perceive directly many truths that are expressed to the main body of the faithful only verbally. So it's not (for us) so much that there's no more dogma, but rather that for them a dogmatic expression is no longer required for understanding, which then goes deeper than intellection.

More or less. I haven't mentioned most of the ways in which the truth might be manifested. It almost makes me wish we had such a systematic way of organizing things as you do -- but then, as organized religions go we're very disorganized....