I will document when I'm given the time to document.
If it's always the tyranny of the urgent, if there's always some fire to put out, I won't have the time to document.
I had a job where the manager was always complaining we didn't document. But he never fought upper management to give us time to document.
If you say "I have to have documentation and it is a deliverable" you will get it. If there is always something more important to do, it won't get done.
I had a boss right out of college who didn't want to use local variables or parameters. He explained to me that this was how it was done in the mainframe days.
Oddly enough, my aunt was a computer programmer, starting in the mid 60's. She was working when IBM came out with a computer that had the same assembly language as the previous one. (Progress!)
Anyway, she confirmed my suspicions that my boss didn't know what he was talking about.
It's one thing to work for a boss who has to have every idea be his own. It's quite another when that is combined with someone is flawed technically.
I took some advice from Joel on Software and I ask a candidate to psuedo-code the Fibonacci sequence using recursion. It shows me if they can think through a problem. The recursion tells me about their background in programming and whether they can think abstractly while holding multiple levels of a problem in their head. And it shows me a little bit of programming skill.
And I don't care if they get everything 100% correct.
Is it a puzzle? Not sure if it falls under that category but it seems more pertinent than the usual puzzles.
Rights allow you to be left alone and find your own way.
Rights do not require an obligation on others besides to be left alone and not harmed. If you had a right to food or a right to whatever nice thing you can think of, then you are basically putting a demand on someone else to do something for you. And if they don't want to do something for you? Well, if it is a legitimate right, you have to do something for a person even if you want nothing to do with them.
I understand the point but this is how I feel about it.
If they have a method that saves them $5 and gives me no additional cost, that's fine with me. If they want to pass the savings along or some of the savings, that's even better.
If they charge me for something I know is saving them money, it does upset me. I'll get over it. But it doesn't build up loyalty. And I'll look for the cheapest option for myself.
I'm not going to tell you that the Supreme Court is infallible, far from it, but in cases like this they will be looking at the laws Congress has set and doing their best.
It isn't up to the SCOTUS whether certain patents should or should not be allowed. That's Congress's job. Not their's.
Most likely if it has gotten to the SCOTUS there is some ambiguity in the law and/or case law on how it should be implemented in this case.
So people in general complain any time corporations put short term profits over the long term well-being of the company? You have a CEO who isn't being an idiot but made mistakes. What he is trying to do is make sure his company doesn't die in the long run by trying to keep the short term profits.
Maybe executives focus on the short term for a reason. It's kind of like we say we want a politician who does the greater good, etc., etc., but when push comes to shove we want a politician who fights to keep our piece of the pie. Same thing here.
We send a bunch of mixed signals. We don't want an executive to play it safe, but if you make the wrong decision you're fired.
I don't believe there is a static set amount of work out there. If there are workers available here, that is a resource waiting to be tapped to do new and interesting things.
"by necessity have to reject science as a methodology"
Not at all. They just disagree with certain conclusions or in the case of man-made global warming think the case is inadequate so far.
That's not disagreeing with science as a methodology. Although evolution as a historical science is a hell of a lot different than physics, chemistry, or straightforward biology in the methodology department. That's not a fault. That just has to do with dealing with the past and not being able to run experiments.
I seem to have missed all those people out there who think science doesn't work.
I know people skeptical of man-made global warming. I know of many others that aren't hard-core Darwinists (to various extents; not all Young Earth Creationists).
I know of absolutely no one who denies all of science as a discipline of knowledge. Definitely as a discipline which claims total knowledge, but not as a valid path of knowledge of the natural world.
I guess that's a long way around the barn to say "you are arguing with a straw man."
I interviewed for a major life insurance company. They already have the ability to monitor all that stuff (except for texts, but that seems trivial if you have access). I know for a fact a previous employer of mine had that capability and used it as well.
The only interesting thing about this is they asked Georgia Tech to help instead of a more traditional defense-type contractor.
But I'm not going to start arguing based on practicality. Are we for freedom or not? If you don't want to work at a job that won't give you time and a half, go camp out in some park protesting the 1%. Let the rest of us make our own decisions.
Furthermore, you aren't going to change what a job is worth. If you start dictating higher pay (relative to what the work is worth), you start seeing things like high unemployment among teens because of the minimum wage law.
Slashdot Mirror
I will document when I'm given the time to document.
If it's always the tyranny of the urgent, if there's always some fire to put out, I won't have the time to document.
I had a job where the manager was always complaining we didn't document. But he never fought upper management to give us time to document.
If you say "I have to have documentation and it is a deliverable" you will get it. If there is always something more important to do, it won't get done.
I had a boss right out of college who didn't want to use local variables or parameters. He explained to me that this was how it was done in the mainframe days.
Oddly enough, my aunt was a computer programmer, starting in the mid 60's. She was working when IBM came out with a computer that had the same assembly language as the previous one. (Progress!)
Anyway, she confirmed my suspicions that my boss didn't know what he was talking about.
It's one thing to work for a boss who has to have every idea be his own. It's quite another when that is combined with someone is flawed technically.
I took some advice from Joel on Software and I ask a candidate to psuedo-code the Fibonacci sequence using recursion. It shows me if they can think through a problem. The recursion tells me about their background in programming and whether they can think abstractly while holding multiple levels of a problem in their head. And it shows me a little bit of programming skill.
And I don't care if they get everything 100% correct.
Is it a puzzle? Not sure if it falls under that category but it seems more pertinent than the usual puzzles.
Rights allow you to be left alone and find your own way.
Rights do not require an obligation on others besides to be left alone and not harmed. If you had a right to food or a right to whatever nice thing you can think of, then you are basically putting a demand on someone else to do something for you. And if they don't want to do something for you? Well, if it is a legitimate right, you have to do something for a person even if you want nothing to do with them.
It is comprised primarily of Germans.
And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCaQBl_yBs
I was given the Commodore 128. Just missed out on all the ability to reminisce.
Could you let me know how I could become a paid shill to post on Slashdot? I hope it would be quite lucrative.
I understand the point but this is how I feel about it.
If they have a method that saves them $5 and gives me no additional cost, that's fine with me. If they want to pass the savings along or some of the savings, that's even better.
If they charge me for something I know is saving them money, it does upset me. I'll get over it. But it doesn't build up loyalty. And I'll look for the cheapest option for myself.
We're just sheep apparently. Easily led from phone to phone.
This falls under the same category as articles that think everybody will want Android because it can be hacked.
It's about influence of the news, not morality.
But to be honest, they should have picked Hitler for the last century.
I have Time's Person of the Year on my resume. Thank you very much.
The cycle also looks like monarchy gets into lots of wars...wars mean debt...Jews hold a lot of debt because they work in finance...kill the Jews.
It was done by a man and involves lots of math.
I'm not going to tell you that the Supreme Court is infallible, far from it, but in cases like this they will be looking at the laws Congress has set and doing their best.
It isn't up to the SCOTUS whether certain patents should or should not be allowed. That's Congress's job. Not their's.
Most likely if it has gotten to the SCOTUS there is some ambiguity in the law and/or case law on how it should be implemented in this case.
So people in general complain any time corporations put short term profits over the long term well-being of the company? You have a CEO who isn't being an idiot but made mistakes. What he is trying to do is make sure his company doesn't die in the long run by trying to keep the short term profits.
Maybe executives focus on the short term for a reason. It's kind of like we say we want a politician who does the greater good, etc., etc., but when push comes to shove we want a politician who fights to keep our piece of the pie. Same thing here.
We send a bunch of mixed signals. We don't want an executive to play it safe, but if you make the wrong decision you're fired.
I don't believe there is a static set amount of work out there. If there are workers available here, that is a resource waiting to be tapped to do new and interesting things.
I didn't stop reading after Darwin was published. Space and lack of desire to spawn tangents prevent me from interacting with some of your comments.
Suffice it to say, these folks aren't rejecting science per se.
"by necessity have to reject science as a methodology"
Not at all. They just disagree with certain conclusions or in the case of man-made global warming think the case is inadequate so far.
That's not disagreeing with science as a methodology. Although evolution as a historical science is a hell of a lot different than physics, chemistry, or straightforward biology in the methodology department. That's not a fault. That just has to do with dealing with the past and not being able to run experiments.
I seem to have missed all those people out there who think science doesn't work.
I know people skeptical of man-made global warming. I know of many others that aren't hard-core Darwinists (to various extents; not all Young Earth Creationists).
I know of absolutely no one who denies all of science as a discipline of knowledge. Definitely as a discipline which claims total knowledge, but not as a valid path of knowledge of the natural world.
I guess that's a long way around the barn to say "you are arguing with a straw man."
I interviewed for a major life insurance company. They already have the ability to monitor all that stuff (except for texts, but that seems trivial if you have access). I know for a fact a previous employer of mine had that capability and used it as well.
The only interesting thing about this is they asked Georgia Tech to help instead of a more traditional defense-type contractor.
Intervening is the exact opposite of laissez faire.
I'm not for forcing kids to work. But if they want to, the minimum wage can be an impediment.
But it very often doesn't settle on that wage.
But I'm not going to start arguing based on practicality. Are we for freedom or not? If you don't want to work at a job that won't give you time and a half, go camp out in some park protesting the 1%. Let the rest of us make our own decisions.
Furthermore, you aren't going to change what a job is worth. If you start dictating higher pay (relative to what the work is worth), you start seeing things like high unemployment among teens because of the minimum wage law.
It's safely invested in Greek, Italian and Spanish government bonds. They went with a conservative approach to investing.