You sound like a doctor complaining that today's medical schools aren't graduating any decent brain surgeons. The truth is that medicine, like CS, is a very broad field of study. Your primary schooling is not intended to teach you a specialty, but to teach you the basic skills needed in a cross section of specialties so that if needed you can later be trained (probably OTJ) as a specialist.
The only difference between the medical and CS industries is that the medical field recognizes the education for what it is and has instituted very carefully crafted programs to mentor and train young, incoming doctors and help them identify a specialty that fits them and then build their skills in that specialty.
In CS it sounds like the senior personnel prefer laughing and pointing fingers to actually mentoring and training their personnel. That HAS to cut into the productivity seen from many of the younger workers.
In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?
His record as a governor looks very solid, his proposals such as his "fair tax" are fresh ideas, and he definitely appears to be a Washington (and more importantly a Political Party) outsider. Except for the core religious right issues, his record as governor seems fairly moderate.
To be honest, if he wasn't a pastor, I suspect he would be doing far better in this election. It is the odd thing about religion in this country - Romney's record as governor doesn't match his current position on most issues, but he seems to be getting a free pass. Huckabee's record as governor is solid and matches his current positions, but the media only focuses on his religion.
But let's be honest for a moment, the elites of the Republican party who pushed Bush "because of his faith" are the same elites who are pushing Romney "because of his executive experience". The truth is, the elites push the UPPER CLASS candidates who they know will "take care of their own". As though the wealthiest Americans need any extra taking care of.
The reason "campus Republicans" are perceived to be the campus underdogs is that at this point in history the right tends to produce ideologues, who don't deserve and rarely qualify for university positions. This lack of open-mindedness is the biggest hinderance to right-leaning scholars playing a bigger role on campuses. The ideologues have all the answers and simply must find away to make data and evidence fit their ideology.
So the professors of the 50's were wrong headed because they stereotyped everyone who didn't agree with them, unlike the professors of today, who with great accuracy and zero bias can honestly state that everyone who disagrees with them is close-minded, undeserving, unqualified, and generally un-scholarly.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The manufactured threat that accompanied the run up to the Iraq war is a perfect example...
I recall a speech made just after the Iraq War kicked off in which President Bill Clinton stated that the WMD intel that the Bush administration quoted was the same intelligence he received from our nations intel community. He also stated that the intel always seemed credible to him and his advisors.
Yet with clear evidence pointing to the fact that our best intel agencies misread the info they were receiving and misled not one but two separate administrations (Clinton and Bush), here you are perpetrating the theory that the neocons somehow manufactured the Iraq WMD threat.
To be sure, the neocons bungled the response to the intelligence, by thinking war and nation building was a cake walk. They should bear responsibility for that. But let's stick to the facts of what they did instead of inventing fictitious new ones.
I argue that the US is great *because* we can burn our flag.
Our country is great because of the soldiers who were willing to fight and die for our freedoms - for many of whom the symbol of said freedom is our nation's flag. Do with it as you will, but remember that if you have never fought for the freedoms the flag represents, then desecrating it is a commentary on yourself, not on our nation.
Besides, if there is one thing our nation is NOT lacking, it is "expression". Everyone wants to express themselves and have their say, not so many want to roll up their sleeves and get to the hard work that could bring about some real change.
The colleges would teach computer science if businesses were willing to pay for it. Unfortunately the industry wants to pay for the minimum, so that is what is being produced. Add in inept businesses managers, who see no difference between CS and CIS majors (except the CIS majors are willing to work for less money), and you have the industry today.
It's why so many "project managers" think taking a little extra time to properly engineer a system is a waste of time, but have no problem rewriting entire systems every few years since they are unmaintainable.
Pretty much every expert on planet earth who has made it their life work to study the development of children would disagree with nearly everything you said. So why should anyone lend credence to your assertions? Because you really really REALLY believe you're right? Because if you repeat it often enough it eventually becomes true? Because you know that on the internet there is always someone willing to believe anything?
I'm still waiting to hear back on my patent application for the circle. Once it is approved, I'll be able to charge EVERYONE for royalties. Tire manufacturers, donut makers, DVD distributors, Frisbee companies, even Mrs. Smith for her Apple Pie.
The situation is equally as likely as if the universe were created 1 minute ago with everything in existence as it is including everyone's memories of past events that did not actually happen.
Wow, this conversation was more profitable than I thought it would be. I think you're on to something there - possibly the plot to the next Matrix sequel.
Or imagine a reality that only existed in bursts of an hour. It would randomly copy another reality down to the memories of the inhabitants, they would exist for an hour as though everything was normal, and then the reality would implode and repeat the entire process.
Now imagine this happened in a chain reaction, where realities imploded, copied the reality closest to them, and thus each reality was passed around in 1 hour increments.
Before the scientists get a swelled head, I'd like to point out that scientists are not all that great of debaters - its simply that many creationists are very poor at it.
With a little practice, they could easily point out that God, being all powerful, could have created the universe in an instant while fashioning it in such a manner that it appeared to already be billions of years old.
Slightly illegal? Is there a sliding scale of culpability when it comes to stealing what belongs to someone else these days? Obviously I mean OTHER than corporate scams like Enron.
No, thanks. I don't believe in judging someone using the force of the law.
How long do you believe you would retain your life and property if we abolished the criminal justice system? A few days, perhaps, before you would be murdered in your own home and everything you own is carted away?
Everyone I have met who works in government is projecting their own fears about their own shortcomings, and I think many of the judges are the worst about it.
So EVERYONE in the government is wrong and motivated solely by fear, yet somehow Americans still seem to enjoy freedom, stability, & security?
I've got to tell you, I used to worry about some of the abuses of power I observed from our 2 big political parties, but these days I worry more about the slashdot crowd ready to tear down and toss out every element of our criminal justice and democratic systems of government. WAKE UP and realize that while our government isn't perfect, it is still by far one of the best systems of government that humanity has ever seen.
Thankfully, everyone NOT in the government posts only truthful information about themselves on the internet. So we only need to lock down the comments of government employees.
Besides, they defend freedom - they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it too! Living overseas away from friends and family while working hard for a mediocre paycheck should be more than enough thanks.
Some of us have been making a living for most of our lives exclusively from FOSS; in fact, my living has been *BETTER* in the open source field when you count that I have $0 overhead cost, since the tools are free, the platform is free...
To summarize, you earn a tidy living as a programmer because another programmer was willing to work for free.
To which I would have to say: At least Microsoft pays their programmers well before capitalizing on their work to generate revenue.
The thread links to an article whose tone I took as negative towards Microsoft. And what was the heinous crime Microsoft was accused of? Selling their software! *gasp*
I simply don't understand why everyone takes the point of view that "software should be free" when it requires highly trained specialists to design and code it. I understand that software breaks the mold of traditional manufacturing such as car production, where costly raw materials and a lengthy manufacturing process contributes to the cost of producing a car. With software the cost is all front loaded on the design and implementation, while subsequent reproduction is as cheap as copying a DVD. This comparison misses the point, however: producing software is an enormously expensive proposition. While it may only cost Microsoft $.05 to burn a copy of XP, it cost them millions in development. Those development costs have to be recouped somehow, not to mention paying some interest to the investors who risked their money for the development in the first place. Placing a price tag on the software is how they do it.
So while contributing to an open source project may seem like a good idea in college, upon graduation 99.9% of programmers are going to go looking for a traditional company that will provide an actual paying position. When that happens, programmers quickly learn they weren't "sticking it to the man", they were really only sticking it to themselves and their future careers.
Think about Linux for a moment. Hundreds of programmers have contributed to it, allowing a handful of companies to profit from their hard work. The companies were so appreciative of the free labor that they awarded Linus Torvalds in the neighborhood of $20 million in stock options, yet the vast majority of programmers went unpaid.
How long will such a business model be sustainable? I suspect not long. Programmers are smarter than that, and when they figure out what is going on (you work for free while I capitalize on your hard work and profit from it) I suspect the pool of talent supporting free software will dry up. So I'm left wondering if the entire idea of free software will really be sustainable into the next generation. If it is not, as I suspect, then this entire thread is a moot point. Free software won't steal market share from Microsoft because there will not be any free software.
Yes, Microsoft makes money on its software. I still fail to see why this is a bad thing. Does anyone believe Microsoft should gather several thousand software engineers together and then ask them to work for free?
So what, exactly, is the argument again? Everyone on this planet has a right to be payed for their hard work EXCEPT someone who spends 4 years at a university learning how to develop software? They should work for free, so that their hard work can then be given away for free?
People usually gravitate towards socializing with those who have roughly the same ideas in everything they care about. Since cities have a larger population near you than countryside, the chances of managing to find and surround yourself with like-minded people is greater in cities than outside of them.
More and more I see people seeking out forums where everyone thinks exactly like them, and then beginning to believe that because they have found so many like minded individuals that their beliefs MUST be true and anyone who believes differently is wrong, an idiot, and clearly delusional.
People who have to defend their ideas and ideals among their peers are going to be more cultured/open-minded then those who only have said ideas/ideals reinforced by a small populace.
So your argument is that when rural populations agree on something it's called "group think", but when urbanites or academic types do the same thing it's because they have reached an enlightening consensus that reveals the truth? Should we skip the testing phase and simply accept your hypothesis as fact?
The only thing this thread reminded me of is that "scientists" can be as dogmatic, irrational, reactionary, and prejudiced as the next guy. What's extremely funny here is that the next guy happens to be a religious group that the scientists are accusing of being dogmatic, irrational, reactionary, and prejudiced. Kind of ironic, isn't it.
Meanwhile, history teaches that the next great advance in scientific thought will probably be made by the scientist who approaches everything that science "knows" with suspicion, including the theory of evolution. What would be extremely ironic is if the next great advance came because a scientist was thinking through all of the fringe theories out there that science has no use for when inspiration struck.
Code is basically an algorithm that solves a computational problem. So yes, you can cut and paste algorithms. If you want your application to be maintainable, however, you also have to solve the larger architectural problems, which is something you DON'T get when you cut and paste code.
It is one of the most misunderstood concepts about programming. A programmer fresh out of college knows how to write algorithms really well, but has no idea that there are architectural and design land mines waiting for them just down the development road.
Too many development shops will get an app "working" and think that is all there is to development, because no one has the depth of experience to look a year down the road and see that they will need to rewrite the entire app from scratch in order to make the simplest of changes.
I'm sorry, but if your program is not extensible nor maintainable then you really haven't "succeeded" at anything. You've simply fooled yourself into thinking the process is simpler than it is while screwing your clients out of their development dollars.
Best I can tell, the Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to lose the next election. Luckily for them, the Republicans seem to be doing exactly the same thing.
Then by all means let's hope they both achieve their objectives and lose. Perhaps then the American people will actually win an election, by voting for a national leader and not the least evil choice the powers that be present to us.
Most young children also treat inanimate dolls or stuffed animals as peers
You raise a good point. The study also utilized another robot that simulated a inanimate doll or stuffed animal. The article states:
The children also treated QRIO with more care and attention than a similar-looking but inanimate robot that the researchers called Robby, which acted as a control in the experiment. Once they had grown accustomed to QRIO, they hugged it much more than Robby, who also received far more rough treatment.
I wonder if everyone on Krypton walked around saying, "That Jor-El! Trying to sell us a rocket to escape an 'impending planetary disaster' to some backwater planet where we'll all have 'superpowers'. Yeah right. What a loser."
Programming, on the other hand, can be done by anybody with a Computer Science or related mathematical degree, usually a two year Associate's degree. India is graduating 50,000 people with this training EVERY YEAR.
The research I have looked at indicates that India is graduating roughly 4000 programmers a year who are ready to work professionally within the industry. Compare that with the current estimated shortage of programmers in America being roughly 100,000 and you'll see why its premature to yell that the sky is falling.
Which isn't to say these trends won't reverse in the next 2 decades, but for now I believe most of the hype is being pushed by companies who are looking to artificially keep programmer pay low by creating an artificial sense of panic.
So far there has been no flood of jobs back into the states, or even a trickle for that matter. Nor is there expected to be. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. The firm in question believes that many American companies still do not trust Indian programming services, and their solution is to open an American office and put an American face on their services. They are looking to build a "brand name", if you will.
Their stated end goal is to actually see more programming jobs shifted to India. This isn't even a secret. Read the press releases they have made, they lay out their goals for everyone to read. They have no plans to bring jobs back to America, and why should they? They are interested in seeing their home nation do well, and they are positioning themselves extremely well to do just that. One could only wish that American politicians and business leaders felt the same about America.
If you believe that once India has a lock on these industries that they will not implement protectionist measures to keep the business locked up in their country, then you are far more optimistic than I am. The same with our manufacturing jobs. I'm sorry, but nothing will be "flowing" back to America.
America is like a vast pool that has shut off its water supply and at the same time sprung a leak. Everyone looks around and sees that there is still plenty of water. No one seems to realize that once our vast monetary reserves are drained the service industry will fold and the "American" Corporations will simply relocate elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
You sound like a doctor complaining that today's medical schools aren't graduating any decent brain surgeons. The truth is that medicine, like CS, is a very broad field of study. Your primary schooling is not intended to teach you a specialty, but to teach you the basic skills needed in a cross section of specialties so that if needed you can later be trained (probably OTJ) as a specialist.
The only difference between the medical and CS industries is that the medical field recognizes the education for what it is and has instituted very carefully crafted programs to mentor and train young, incoming doctors and help them identify a specialty that fits them and then build their skills in that specialty.
In CS it sounds like the senior personnel prefer laughing and pointing fingers to actually mentoring and training their personnel. That HAS to cut into the productivity seen from many of the younger workers.
I've heard it said that "unforgiveness is like drinking poison and hoping someone else will die".
Never forget and never stop fighting for what is just and true, but please for your own sake, forgive.
His record as a governor looks very solid, his proposals such as his "fair tax" are fresh ideas, and he definitely appears to be a Washington (and more importantly a Political Party) outsider. Except for the core religious right issues, his record as governor seems fairly moderate.
To be honest, if he wasn't a pastor, I suspect he would be doing far better in this election. It is the odd thing about religion in this country - Romney's record as governor doesn't match his current position on most issues, but he seems to be getting a free pass. Huckabee's record as governor is solid and matches his current positions, but the media only focuses on his religion.
But let's be honest for a moment, the elites of the Republican party who pushed Bush "because of his faith" are the same elites who are pushing Romney "because of his executive experience". The truth is, the elites push the UPPER CLASS candidates who they know will "take care of their own". As though the wealthiest Americans need any extra taking care of.
So the professors of the 50's were wrong headed because they stereotyped everyone who didn't agree with them, unlike the professors of today, who with great accuracy and zero bias can honestly state that everyone who disagrees with them is close-minded, undeserving, unqualified, and generally un-scholarly.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I recall a speech made just after the Iraq War kicked off in which President Bill Clinton stated that the WMD intel that the Bush administration quoted was the same intelligence he received from our nations intel community. He also stated that the intel always seemed credible to him and his advisors.
Yet with clear evidence pointing to the fact that our best intel agencies misread the info they were receiving and misled not one but two separate administrations (Clinton and Bush), here you are perpetrating the theory that the neocons somehow manufactured the Iraq WMD threat.
To be sure, the neocons bungled the response to the intelligence, by thinking war and nation building was a cake walk. They should bear responsibility for that. But let's stick to the facts of what they did instead of inventing fictitious new ones.
Our country is great because of the soldiers who were willing to fight and die for our freedoms - for many of whom the symbol of said freedom is our nation's flag. Do with it as you will, but remember that if you have never fought for the freedoms the flag represents, then desecrating it is a commentary on yourself, not on our nation.
Besides, if there is one thing our nation is NOT lacking, it is "expression". Everyone wants to express themselves and have their say, not so many want to roll up their sleeves and get to the hard work that could bring about some real change.
The colleges would teach computer science if businesses were willing to pay for it. Unfortunately the industry wants to pay for the minimum, so that is what is being produced. Add in inept businesses managers, who see no difference between CS and CIS majors (except the CIS majors are willing to work for less money), and you have the industry today.
It's why so many "project managers" think taking a little extra time to properly engineer a system is a waste of time, but have no problem rewriting entire systems every few years since they are unmaintainable.
Pretty much every expert on planet earth who has made it their life work to study the development of children would disagree with nearly everything you said. So why should anyone lend credence to your assertions? Because you really really REALLY believe you're right? Because if you repeat it often enough it eventually becomes true? Because you know that on the internet there is always someone willing to believe anything ?
I'm still waiting to hear back on my patent application for the circle. Once it is approved, I'll be able to charge EVERYONE for royalties. Tire manufacturers, donut makers, DVD distributors, Frisbee companies, even Mrs. Smith for her Apple Pie.
Wow, this conversation was more profitable than I thought it would be. I think you're on to something there - possibly the plot to the next Matrix sequel.
Or imagine a reality that only existed in bursts of an hour. It would randomly copy another reality down to the memories of the inhabitants, they would exist for an hour as though everything was normal, and then the reality would implode and repeat the entire process.
Now imagine this happened in a chain reaction, where realities imploded, copied the reality closest to them, and thus each reality was passed around in 1 hour increments.
Before the scientists get a swelled head, I'd like to point out that scientists are not all that great of debaters - its simply that many creationists are very poor at it.
With a little practice, they could easily point out that God, being all powerful, could have created the universe in an instant while fashioning it in such a manner that it appeared to already be billions of years old.
Debate THAT.
Slightly illegal? Is there a sliding scale of culpability when it comes to stealing what belongs to someone else these days? Obviously I mean OTHER than corporate scams like Enron.
How long do you believe you would retain your life and property if we abolished the criminal justice system? A few days, perhaps, before you would be murdered in your own home and everything you own is carted away?
So EVERYONE in the government is wrong and motivated solely by fear, yet somehow Americans still seem to enjoy freedom, stability, & security?
I've got to tell you, I used to worry about some of the abuses of power I observed from our 2 big political parties, but these days I worry more about the slashdot crowd ready to tear down and toss out every element of our criminal justice and democratic systems of government. WAKE UP and realize that while our government isn't perfect, it is still by far one of the best systems of government that humanity has ever seen.
Thankfully, everyone NOT in the government posts only truthful information about themselves on the internet. So we only need to lock down the comments of government employees.
Besides, they defend freedom - they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it too! Living overseas away from friends and family while working hard for a mediocre paycheck should be more than enough thanks.
To summarize, you earn a tidy living as a programmer because another programmer was willing to work for free.
To which I would have to say: At least Microsoft pays their programmers well before capitalizing on their work to generate revenue.
The thread links to an article whose tone I took as negative towards Microsoft. And what was the heinous crime Microsoft was accused of? Selling their software! *gasp*
I simply don't understand why everyone takes the point of view that "software should be free" when it requires highly trained specialists to design and code it. I understand that software breaks the mold of traditional manufacturing such as car production, where costly raw materials and a lengthy manufacturing process contributes to the cost of producing a car. With software the cost is all front loaded on the design and implementation, while subsequent reproduction is as cheap as copying a DVD. This comparison misses the point, however: producing software is an enormously expensive proposition. While it may only cost Microsoft $.05 to burn a copy of XP, it cost them millions in development. Those development costs have to be recouped somehow, not to mention paying some interest to the investors who risked their money for the development in the first place. Placing a price tag on the software is how they do it.
So while contributing to an open source project may seem like a good idea in college, upon graduation 99.9% of programmers are going to go looking for a traditional company that will provide an actual paying position. When that happens, programmers quickly learn they weren't "sticking it to the man", they were really only sticking it to themselves and their future careers.
Think about Linux for a moment. Hundreds of programmers have contributed to it, allowing a handful of companies to profit from their hard work. The companies were so appreciative of the free labor that they awarded Linus Torvalds in the neighborhood of $20 million in stock options, yet the vast majority of programmers went unpaid.
How long will such a business model be sustainable? I suspect not long. Programmers are smarter than that, and when they figure out what is going on (you work for free while I capitalize on your hard work and profit from it) I suspect the pool of talent supporting free software will dry up. So I'm left wondering if the entire idea of free software will really be sustainable into the next generation. If it is not, as I suspect, then this entire thread is a moot point. Free software won't steal market share from Microsoft because there will not be any free software.
Yes, Microsoft makes money on its software. I still fail to see why this is a bad thing. Does anyone believe Microsoft should gather several thousand software engineers together and then ask them to work for free?
So what, exactly, is the argument again? Everyone on this planet has a right to be payed for their hard work EXCEPT someone who spends 4 years at a university learning how to develop software? They should work for free, so that their hard work can then be given away for free?
More and more I see people seeking out forums where everyone thinks exactly like them, and then beginning to believe that because they have found so many like minded individuals that their beliefs MUST be true and anyone who believes differently is wrong, an idiot, and clearly delusional.
Activision Blizzard? That's the best name they could come up with?
If they wanted to depend on brand name recognition, they should have simply called themselves "The Creators of WOW & Call of Duty".
So your argument is that when rural populations agree on something it's called "group think", but when urbanites or academic types do the same thing it's because they have reached an enlightening consensus that reveals the truth? Should we skip the testing phase and simply accept your hypothesis as fact?
The only thing this thread reminded me of is that "scientists" can be as dogmatic, irrational, reactionary, and prejudiced as the next guy. What's extremely funny here is that the next guy happens to be a religious group that the scientists are accusing of being dogmatic, irrational, reactionary, and prejudiced. Kind of ironic, isn't it.
Meanwhile, history teaches that the next great advance in scientific thought will probably be made by the scientist who approaches everything that science "knows" with suspicion, including the theory of evolution. What would be extremely ironic is if the next great advance came because a scientist was thinking through all of the fringe theories out there that science has no use for when inspiration struck.
Yeah, that would be nearly poetic.
Code is basically an algorithm that solves a computational problem. So yes, you can cut and paste algorithms. If you want your application to be maintainable, however, you also have to solve the larger architectural problems, which is something you DON'T get when you cut and paste code.
It is one of the most misunderstood concepts about programming. A programmer fresh out of college knows how to write algorithms really well, but has no idea that there are architectural and design land mines waiting for them just down the development road.
Too many development shops will get an app "working" and think that is all there is to development, because no one has the depth of experience to look a year down the road and see that they will need to rewrite the entire app from scratch in order to make the simplest of changes.
I'm sorry, but if your program is not extensible nor maintainable then you really haven't "succeeded" at anything. You've simply fooled yourself into thinking the process is simpler than it is while screwing your clients out of their development dollars.
Then by all means let's hope they both achieve their objectives and lose. Perhaps then the American people will actually win an election, by voting for a national leader and not the least evil choice the powers that be present to us.
You raise a good point. The study also utilized another robot that simulated a inanimate doll or stuffed animal. The article states:
I wonder if everyone on Krypton walked around saying, "That Jor-El! Trying to sell us a rocket to escape an 'impending planetary disaster' to some backwater planet where we'll all have 'superpowers'. Yeah right. What a loser."
The research I have looked at indicates that India is graduating roughly 4000 programmers a year who are ready to work professionally within the industry. Compare that with the current estimated shortage of programmers in America being roughly 100,000 and you'll see why its premature to yell that the sky is falling.
Which isn't to say these trends won't reverse in the next 2 decades, but for now I believe most of the hype is being pushed by companies who are looking to artificially keep programmer pay low by creating an artificial sense of panic.
I'm sorry, but your analysis is all wrong.
So far there has been no flood of jobs back into the states, or even a trickle for that matter. Nor is there expected to be. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. The firm in question believes that many American companies still do not trust Indian programming services, and their solution is to open an American office and put an American face on their services. They are looking to build a "brand name", if you will.
Their stated end goal is to actually see more programming jobs shifted to India. This isn't even a secret. Read the press releases they have made, they lay out their goals for everyone to read. They have no plans to bring jobs back to America, and why should they? They are interested in seeing their home nation do well, and they are positioning themselves extremely well to do just that. One could only wish that American politicians and business leaders felt the same about America.
If you believe that once India has a lock on these industries that they will not implement protectionist measures to keep the business locked up in their country, then you are far more optimistic than I am. The same with our manufacturing jobs. I'm sorry, but nothing will be "flowing" back to America.
America is like a vast pool that has shut off its water supply and at the same time sprung a leak. Everyone looks around and sees that there is still plenty of water. No one seems to realize that once our vast monetary reserves are drained the service industry will fold and the "American" Corporations will simply relocate elsewhere.