I'm a 42 yr old software engineer/programmer and I know the drill. I'm expensive compared to fresh out of college kid. But I have years of experience they don't have and my employer knows this. Will it save me completely? No, but in no other field can you self teach yourself into the skills you need to have tomorrow. It's that simple. those who go out and learn on their own to keep themselves current will continue to be worth the extra money, those that don't will simply make it easier for those of us who do.
Going out and learning on your own sounds like diligence (and may be necessary), but you have to balance that expenditure of time and (possibly) money against what you are getting in return. If you are spending more in terms of money or opportunity cost than your pay is increasing, you are effectively lowering your salary. That might be better than losing your salary altogether, but it is not a desirable situation.
Being a (good) software engineer takes a better-than-average brain. Better-than-average as in 98% of the world population won't ever be a good software engineer, no matter how much time and effort they put in it, because they simply don't have the brains for it.
Citation? What does "better" mean in terms of brains, anyway?
I doubt that "good" software engineering and "better" brains correlate. There are probably many with above average IQs or who are elites in other fields who would be terrible software engineers.
I submit that "good" software engineering requires no better than a "good" brain, but whatever brain "power" is at hand must be optimized (partly by nature, partly by nurture) for the task at hand.
The point being no combination of education and experience necessarily identifies the "best" in the field. The best that can be done is to reward actual performance, regardless of either.
I went back to school for a mscs and recently got my first entry-level software engineer position, 4 months before (and 4 credits shy) of graduation. I did it at age 41. That flies in the face of the Bloomberg schmuck's article.
Well, good for you. But not good from a broader perspective. Most 41 year olds are not in a position to take an entry level job. Some may say "well, their expectations are too high", but the bottom line is that society can not function optimally (if at all) under this state of affairs. You are at an age where many people will have young families and all of the associated obligations on their time and money. Lack of income security will breed all kinds of negative outcomes, from depressed consumer demand to broken families to the diseases promoted by stress.
Its nice that you yourself could choose (and afford) to make such a switch, but it should be an viable option not an unreasonable expectation.
Individuals create government. Our government is not perfect, but has a much better track record for serving citizens, and much more potential to do an even better job, than any local charity.
Inducing consumption is the goal. If you can convince people that they "need" to do it even better. If you can convince them that they don't "need" to do it, but really, really "want" to, you're golden.
You talk about "government" and "us" as though they were distinct entities. If you recognize that they are one and the same, you'll realize that a) government can do many potentially scary things that harm a lot of people and b) government rarely does such things, especially when they might interfere with the status quo.
I have zero fear that government rules will severely restrict driving privileges, even though I know all kinds of potential misguided and downright corrupt possibilities exist, with virtually no real protection against even the most capricious rules. After all, its pretty hard to get your driving privileges revoked in any meaningful way, even when you are a repeated and blatant hazard to public safety.
OK, let me rephrase then. The new law makes sure that every car owner pays a new invisible tax.
This "tax" is applied via retail prices, where at least there is some (hypothetical) mechanism to keep it low and or offset it with other discounts, so that car sellers can maintain a price advantage.
Moveover this "tax" is only applied to car owners, whereas the cost of law enforcement surveillance is passed by everyone, including those who do not own cars.
What are they gonna dom ban everyone or even 1/4 of the athletes?
I suspect that many athletes, based on the political or economic conditions in their home countries, have a lot to lose by making waves and more pressing concerns than copyright freedoms in a relatively pampered first world country.
But they will crater when the next generation of used cars hits the market and anyone with a smart phone can stand next to one and know about any adverse history.
I have faith in the geeks that if this passes we will have a dozen ways around it in a year.
I also have faith in geeks, except mine tells me that they will be geeking out over access to this data and ways it can be used to optimize their maintenance and driving habits, avoid shady classified car sellers, etc.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right,
This oft-repeated lie needs to be taken out and shot (along with the people who repeat it)
It is not a lie. It is a fact of life that you disagree with based on your interpretation of The Constitution. Under current law (State laws, btw), driving is a privilege.
If anything on the recorder indicates that you have been exceeding speed limits , then thse will be ticketable offenses.
The speeding itself is already a ticketable offense. Speeding is also dangerous and wastes fuel.
That said, speeding is practically the norm and law enforcement does little about it, despite the public safety hazard and the potential revenue from fines. So, in addition to my total lack of concern about the TSA discovering that I have been speeding, I have no concern about data recorders inspiring a crack down on speeding.
(1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA- Any data in an event data recorder required under part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, regardless of when the passenger motor vehicle in which it is installed was manufactured, is the property of the owner, or in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee of the passenger motor vehicle in which the data recorder is installed.
(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;
(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;
(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
Sounds like another good example of people wanting the world to do their parenting for them. "My kid's doing something I don't like, and you're helping them do it! This is all your fault!" No, we're not stopping them, and neither are you. Keeping a handle on what your kids do is your responsibility, not mine. Start being a more responsible parent.
The crux of the issue in this case is whether Apple is allowing games that are designed to induce children to make these purchases. I'm all for parents taking responsible for their children, but I also have no problem punishing nefarious third parties who intentionally take advantage of kids to do something shady.
Current Apple products are intended for the mass-market consumer. On shouldn't have to be some kind of elite user in order to enjoy an advantage.
BTW, I also use Apple gear every day in my line of work (mostly desktop stuff), and I am writing this from a store bought Mac that just had to have its failing hard drive replaced (which it took some "genius" four days to complete).
For contagions: No. They do not evolve in livestock to directly attack humans any more so than they do from plants. They evolve in their host and can be transmissible, and this is just as true from plants as it is from livestock.
Influenza viruses frequently fester in livestock, jump to humans and then spread throughout the world.
In fact, public schools do not breed the kind of spineless, easily tyrannized citizens that you claim. If what you claim were true, everyone would hold teachers in high esteem. On the contrary, teachers are nobody's boss in America. They are hamstrung by tribal politicians, terrorized by broken testing regimes and bullied by parents who think teachers are simply there to babysit their unruly children.
The problem is not that America's schools breed spineless students. The problem is that America's broken priorities breed spineless teachers.
Moreover, as is often the case, government management is the worst option, except for all the alternatives. Our public schools have many problems, but they do a commendable job, considering what they have to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a 42 yr old software engineer/programmer and I know the drill. I'm expensive compared to fresh out of college kid. But I have years of experience they don't have and my employer knows this. Will it save me completely? No, but in no other field can you self teach yourself into the skills you need to have tomorrow. It's that simple. those who go out and learn on their own to keep themselves current will continue to be worth the extra money, those that don't will simply make it easier for those of us who do.
Going out and learning on your own sounds like diligence (and may be necessary), but you have to balance that expenditure of time and (possibly) money against what you are getting in return. If you are spending more in terms of money or opportunity cost than your pay is increasing, you are effectively lowering your salary. That might be better than losing your salary altogether, but it is not a desirable situation.
Being a (good) software engineer takes a better-than-average brain. Better-than-average as in 98% of the world population won't ever be a good software engineer, no matter how much time and effort they put in it, because they simply don't have the brains for it.
Citation? What does "better" mean in terms of brains, anyway?
I doubt that "good" software engineering and "better" brains correlate. There are probably many with above average IQs or who are elites in other fields who would be terrible software engineers.
I submit that "good" software engineering requires no better than a "good" brain, but whatever brain "power" is at hand must be optimized (partly by nature, partly by nurture) for the task at hand.
The point being no combination of education and experience necessarily identifies the "best" in the field. The best that can be done is to reward actual performance, regardless of either.
I went back to school for a mscs and recently got my first entry-level software engineer position, 4 months before (and 4 credits shy) of graduation. I did it at age 41. That flies in the face of the Bloomberg schmuck's article.
Well, good for you. But not good from a broader perspective. Most 41 year olds are not in a position to take an entry level job. Some may say "well, their expectations are too high", but the bottom line is that society can not function optimally (if at all) under this state of affairs. You are at an age where many people will have young families and all of the associated obligations on their time and money. Lack of income security will breed all kinds of negative outcomes, from depressed consumer demand to broken families to the diseases promoted by stress.
Its nice that you yourself could choose (and afford) to make such a switch, but it should be an viable option not an unreasonable expectation.
Individuals create communities, not government.
Individuals create government. Our government is not perfect, but has a much better track record for serving citizens, and much more potential to do an even better job, than any local charity.
Inducing consumption is the goal. If you can convince people that they "need" to do it even better. If you can convince them that they don't "need" to do it, but really, really "want" to, you're golden.
No need to "reply" to Neal Stephenson that he is not personally responsible.
You talk about "government" and "us" as though they were distinct entities. If you recognize that they are one and the same, you'll realize that a) government can do many potentially scary things that harm a lot of people and b) government rarely does such things, especially when they might interfere with the status quo.
I have zero fear that government rules will severely restrict driving privileges, even though I know all kinds of potential misguided and downright corrupt possibilities exist, with virtually no real protection against even the most capricious rules. After all, its pretty hard to get your driving privileges revoked in any meaningful way, even when you are a repeated and blatant hazard to public safety.
OK, let me rephrase then. The new law makes sure that every car owner pays a new invisible tax.
This "tax" is applied via retail prices, where at least there is some (hypothetical) mechanism to keep it low and or offset it with other discounts, so that car sellers can maintain a price advantage.
Moveover this "tax" is only applied to car owners, whereas the cost of law enforcement surveillance is passed by everyone, including those who do not own cars.
What are they gonna dom ban everyone or even 1/4 of the athletes?
I suspect that many athletes, based on the political or economic conditions in their home countries, have a lot to lose by making waves and more pressing concerns than copyright freedoms in a relatively pampered first world country.
But they will crater when the next generation of used cars hits the market and anyone with a smart phone can stand next to one and know about any adverse history.
I have faith in the geeks that if this passes we will have a dozen ways around it in a year.
I also have faith in geeks, except mine tells me that they will be geeking out over access to this data and ways it can be used to optimize their maintenance and driving habits, avoid shady classified car sellers, etc.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right,
This oft-repeated lie needs to be taken out and shot (along with the people who repeat it)
It is not a lie. It is a fact of life that you disagree with based on your interpretation of The Constitution. Under current law (State laws, btw), driving is a privilege.
With a warrant they can already put whatever instrumentation they want on your car
Yes. But this law makes sure that YOU pay for that instrumentation.
Who pays when law enforcement buys and installs the instrumentation?
If anything on the recorder indicates that you have been exceeding speed limits , then thse will be ticketable offenses.
The speeding itself is already a ticketable offense. Speeding is also dangerous and wastes fuel.
That said, speeding is practically the norm and law enforcement does little about it, despite the public safety hazard and the potential revenue from fines. So, in addition to my total lack of concern about the TSA discovering that I have been speeding, I have no concern about data recorders inspiring a crack down on speeding.
what 'obvious' benefits???
Error logging on ubiquitous machines that have profound impacts on the daily lives of just about every American (even those that never drive).
So do you live completely off the grid to protect yourself form these abuses? Or do you willingly trade vague risks for obvious benefits?
(b) Limitations on Information Retrieval-
(1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA- Any data in an event data recorder required under part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, regardless of when the passenger motor vehicle in which it is installed was manufactured, is the property of the owner, or in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee of the passenger motor vehicle in which the data recorder is installed.
(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;
(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;
(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
Big deal.
Sounds like another good example of people wanting the world to do their parenting for them. "My kid's doing something I don't like, and you're helping them do it! This is all your fault!" No, we're not stopping them, and neither are you. Keeping a handle on what your kids do is your responsibility, not mine. Start being a more responsible parent.
The crux of the issue in this case is whether Apple is allowing games that are designed to induce children to make these purchases. I'm all for parents taking responsible for their children, but I also have no problem punishing nefarious third parties who intentionally take advantage of kids to do something shady.
Sounds like these CEOs define "breadth of business perspectives" as "various confirmations of my perspective".
. . .esp. in the hands of a skilled user.
Current Apple products are intended for the mass-market consumer. On shouldn't have to be some kind of elite user in order to enjoy an advantage.
BTW, I also use Apple gear every day in my line of work (mostly desktop stuff), and I am writing this from a store bought Mac that just had to have its failing hard drive replaced (which it took some "genius" four days to complete).
. . .so the plant-farmers aren't exactly safe...
Of course they aren't exactly safe. The questions are which is safer, and by how much?
For contagions: No. They do not evolve in livestock to directly attack humans any more so than they do from plants. They evolve in their host and can be transmissible, and this is just as true from plants as it is from livestock.
Influenza viruses frequently fester in livestock, jump to humans and then spread throughout the world.
Luckily there's never any human illness or casualties from contagion on crops, nor strains of fungus, mold, or insects that desimate farmlands...
Do plant contagions or plant destroying insects evolve to directly attack humans?
First, hold teachers accountable.
Disagree. First, hold parents accountable.
In fact, public schools do not breed the kind of spineless, easily tyrannized citizens that you claim. If what you claim were true, everyone would hold teachers in high esteem. On the contrary, teachers are nobody's boss in America. They are hamstrung by tribal politicians, terrorized by broken testing regimes and bullied by parents who think teachers are simply there to babysit their unruly children.
The problem is not that America's schools breed spineless students. The problem is that America's broken priorities breed spineless teachers.
Moreover, as is often the case, government management is the worst option, except for all the alternatives. Our public schools have many problems, but they do a commendable job, considering what they have to work with.