So you know your WOEID? I could have sworn the article was talking about using a unique identifier to identify places that had nothing to do with their names because the name could potentially change.
And pretty sure long/lat is a little more precise than zip code, pretty universally easy to look up for any location and more amenable to wildcard searches and approximation.
"Yahoo! has been working for a while to promote a unified system for referring to places, through their Where On Earth IDs. Using a WOEID."
Don't F* with someone who lives with you if they know you're engaging in illegal activities.
"I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookiee win." - C3PO
Re:Needs PAID critics - and PAID developers
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
Thank You! I'd Mod you up to +10 if it were an option.
SORRY, I THINK THIS WENT OT...
Frankly, I'm stunned that FOSS has taken off the way it has. I can't think of any other profession that provides their services for absolutely free. Musicians, no. Authors, no. Lawyers, Doctors, Clergy, Social Workers? No. Closest example I can think of would be the Clergy or Doctors doing "Doctors Without Borders". They don't do it for free. Their transportation is paid for by a 3rd party. Their shelter paid for by 3rd party. Their food paid for by 3rd party. All required equipment/supplies paid for by 3rd party. They may not be "making" any money, but it's not for free. Don't get me wrong. I love the ideology behind it. I just wish it had been in place before I got into programming for a PROFESSION. I would've chosen a career where I'm not competing against free labor for my livelihood and then I too would program for free.
I've seen criticism of the available FOSS groupware. ?!?!?!?!?! Groupware is a business app. There's plenty of free mail services, etc. on the web for individuals. Why the hell is anyone making free software for businesses?! Reminds me of that commercial where they're asking the kids what they want to be when they grow up. Little kid says, "Someday, I want to work my way up into middle management."
Yeah, I remember when I was 6 thinking "When I grow up I'm going to be a programmer and write free groupware for businesses."
Sorry, end of anti-FOSS rant.
Now, anti-FOSS practicality:
The reason MAC and Windows are able to compete with free software is that you are paying to
1. Not have to know or understand any of the details behind their implementations. 2. Everything that is supposed to work does out of the box. 3. If a major issue exists in the software there is a very high probability it will be fixed in the next release. 4. If you can't wait for the next release you can pay them to fix it or give you a viable workaround.
If they gave away cars for free but people had to build it themselves from the ground up do you think everyone would stop buying cars? Linux people would and would think everyone else is a sucker. Non-Linux IT people would think it a fun project, but they would still buy a car to get to work. Non IT people would not think it fun at all and would just buy a car to get where they need to go.
Lastly, if it's free, why do you care if people don't want to use it?? What do you have to gain? Clearly there must be something in it for you if you care. And if there's something in it, well then, philisophically at least, it's not really free. Ie, It's worth the cost of the inconvenience to the layman. It's worth the cost of the elimination of programming as a profession. It's worth the cost of highly intelligent people going into non-technical professions so that they can earn a living. It's worth the cost of some other unknown variable I haven't considered, so that we can all get software that performs services for us for free. I'm not a Good vs. Evil kind of guy so I'm not making any judgements about it being right or wrong. Just being cliche in quoting "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
I graduated with a BS in CS in '95. Actually think it may have been a BA. I originally started out in EE for 3 years but all my co-op was programming and everyone insisted that was where EE was going, all programming. So I didn't see the point of ruining my social life just to become a programmer.
First off,
Degree Track - Business Profession (Out of School):
BS EE, Masters CS - Programmer BS CS - Administrator MIS - Help Desk
Basically, without work experience (and working while going to school, as I discovered the hard way, apparently doesn't count. Should've been a bartender instead of working in the lab.) they'll consider you qualified for one "step" lower than your degree.
Secondly,
Within 4 years (Thank you dot-com boom. You are sorely missed.) of graduating I was making $100/hr as a programmer. Had to work my way into programming for the 1st two years. Once I hit that level an advanced degree was pretty much useless to me. I had the opportunity to begin working with SAP at the time but passed on it in favor of the more universal Java programming not knowing how long this SAP thing would last. I had seen too many Lotus Notes and Cobol programmers scrambling to get back on a healthy career track. To this day I am still at a price point that makes getting a graduate degree a bad investment. But I'd be making a whole lot more if I had seen the future of SAP and the Java programmer market. Now I'm saving up to go back to grad school. Not for more money. I could be retired in 10 years if I keep up at the pace I'm at and going back will just delay that at least 5 years. I'm going back because I'm sick of writing business apps I have no personal interest in.
Bottom line:
No one knows what will be lucrative 5 years from now. You could end up a very pissed off individual if you guess and are wrong.
You need a BS but after that work experience pretty much levels out an advanced degree (until you explicitly need it to get where you want to go next and THEN you get it) and I've seen instances where it has actually hurt the individual as some potential employers see academia types as not interested in getting their hands dirty with the actual working part of the job.
As has been emphasized here several times already. Proceed to the graduate level because you are actually fascinated with the subject matter you will be studying. That's what graduate degrees are for. And honestly, I may not go back to grad school. I can always look up the courses I'm interested in and find out what books/materials they are using and just learn the material myself. If I'm honestly just fascinated by the subject matter then a graduate degree is just an unneccessary cost that takes away money for materials/studying. The point of that was not to disparage graduate programs (I've discounted the value in being surrounded in an environment of your peers and mentors who are also fascinated by the same thing you are. That is huge.), it was more to suggest that graduate school itself has its own career track more often than not leading into the business of college administration.
That being said, hiding out in a graduate program for a couple years till the economy improves isn't such a bad idea either.
Who wants to start a satellite internet company? Even with it's horrible upload speeds, looks like they (and all of these other countries thinking of imposing mandatory censorship) could give satellite a chance to make a comeback. Good thing Australia doesn't have a strong space program...yet.
"That's right I said it. The Moon! And we ain't stoppin there! Read my lips. M A R S. Mars Bitches!"
I'd rather flinch even when I know someone isn't actually going to hit me than not flinch when someone is. Accelerated heartbeat when you know it is only a movie. Isn't that what makes it fun and exciting? Goosebumps when you know you have no hair to fluff. Ok, don't have much to refute on this, but pretty sure it served and may still serve some useful, if trivial, purpose. Goosebumps are no hair off my back.:) Even the annoying sensation of cold when you know you are able to maintain core temperature. Better than getting frostbite because you got distracted and forgot to consciously monitor your core temperature.
My point is, I don't consider these "Bugs" in our software. I consider them for the most part critical vital responses to stimuli that have been hardwired into our brains because they have proven to fit the 90+% rule over the eons and it is far more efficient and beneficial to our survival and reproduction to respond immediately to them in this way. Same with our emotions. If someone hits you in the face you get mad and usually respond by striking them back. If it's your best friend and it was an accident you question these irrational "buggy" emotions. But your friend will almost never accidentally hit you in the face. 90+% of the time some aggressor is potentially trying to kill you and if you had to take the time every time to consciously decide if this is an action that requires reprisal or further defense and then consciously send the proper signals for your metabolism to speed up and your senses to heighten and clench fist, etc. The person with the "buggy", inefficient emotions would have already killed you or at least critically injured you. Thus its persistence in the gene pool.
Now on the other side of the coin. If I burnt my hand on the stove when I was 3 and developed an acute fear of the stove as a result which prevented me from going near it as result of the intense emotional response this would be detrimental to my wellbeing. If I could remove the intense emotional response it would greatly benefit me. The downside? The article didn't say anything about removing the actual memory just the correlating emotional response to it. I think the memory should be enough to keep me from putting my hand on the stove again and I'm pretty confident that even without the memory as an adult I'd know better than to do so.
Bottom line...
Hardwired 90+% correct instant responses to potentially dangerous stimuli. Yay. Softer wired conscious ability to override these responses on a case by case basis after the fact as time permits. Yay. No instant hardwired response to dangerous stimuli and complete constant reliance on conscience decision making for all external events. Boo. Inability to override hardwired responses despite solid conscience evidence to do so. Boo.
If I built two robots with the last two criteria the first one would consciously decide to bludgeon me to death for making it uncompetitive with reactional models. The second one would bludgeon me to death in a uncontrollable rage.
I didn't have to jump off a house and break my leg to know I couldn't fly and I didn't have stick my hand into a fire to figure out it burns. And if I had I don't think I would still need to have those memories now to know those things. And it would REALLY suck if every time I recalled those memories my body fully re-experienced the pain of those events. That would be pretty unnecessary. Of course it would definitely keep me from trying those things again, but pretty sure I could just figure that out with at the very least just the memory and not pain recurrence.
I had a few rats crashing at my place a couple of years ago. They got in through the dryer duct. Apparently, there was no cover on the outside. They were headed up by their indian chief "StealsMySocks". When it was all over with and I finally discovered they were coming and going through the dryer duct hole, I found over a half dozen socks stuffed in the duct hole. I had two dogs (one pit bull, one rhodesian ridgeback/lab) and I picked up a stray cat thinking she'd take care of em. I think the lab got one. The cat one or two. Pit bull nothing. There were always 3 or more running around the house. They mostly lived in my couches in my living room. Got one with the tape strips, that was gruesome, but they mostly managed to avoid them. None with the old school traps. Now one thing I noticed that no one else has mentioned is that the reason no one method works is because they generally have multiple motives for being somewhere. In my case, they never bothered with the kitchen, even though it was between the utility room and the living room where they hung out. So they weren't interested in my food. Apparently, they got plently of that on the outside. No, they were in it for the luxury accommodations. So before I went to the last resort and got an exterminator I decided to try out one of those ultrasonic emitters they claim they can't stand. Plugged it in and sure enough. Drove them right out. Never heard from them again.
So depending on what they're after, ie, if it's peace and quiet, an emitter should work.
BTW, I don't think that actually qualifies as a cliche as it doesn't express a popular thought or idea. However, you are correct in that it was an improperly negated statement.
When the Palms originally came out I thought that it would be a good opportunity to make an entry into the gaming industry. I didn't get the impression that I could probably ever make enough to support myself doing it and so I didn't pursue it.
Not sure exactly how your app works, but MySpace has been starting to offer some, kind of neat, old-old school style, turn based apps and when I first started fooling around with them I immediately thought that this was a very promising new avenue for entry into the market. I'd highly recommend checking out some of the games to get a feel for if your game could be ported and get an idea of how you could generate a revenue stream.
Downside. You'd be giving your game out for free, so no revenue from game sales.
Upside. The business model basically involves you selling bonuses, upgrades, etc for the game.
I kind of like this idea better myself as the main reason I didn't go after the Palm market was that I immediately realized that I personally wouldn't spend money to download a game onto my Palm and there were plenty of free ones available so who would pay me for mine?
However, on Mafia Wars on MySpace for example, I've even been half tempted to spend a few bucks on some upgrades even though they don't even sell anything you can't get for free with patience. I'm not one to spend my money on frivolous things like ring tones, but it's a multi-million dollar industry. So I'm sure there are plenty of people who spend money on this kind of stuff.
If your game is popular you could quite possibly make some decent cash just selling some different skins for it.
Let me know if you decide to go this route and want any help with the port as I'm quite curious about their API and have some ideas myself for some possible apps.
I'd tend to agree with you on this one. I'm getting closer and closer to the point where I've become successful enough that I don't really have to have a job at any particular point in time. I didn't go into this profession so much for the money. I do indeed greatly enjoy programming. As I like to say, "What do you want your computer to do? Make you breakfast? K." What I didn't go into this profession for is to deal with unreasonable deadlines and expectations, tracking every hour of my time, being at their beck and call 24x7, and lack of planning on their part constituting an emergency on mine. So given that, I'd much rather get my money, get out and write code that I want to write, when and how I want to write it. I would think that the best of the best generally tend to go that route. I'm sure there are a lucky few who happen to fall into a company whose mission statement lines up cosmically with their own, but probably very few.
80 hours per week, every week, for 17 years. Started at age 6. What's the problem? I've doubled up jobs several times. This sounds completely plausible to me.;) Maybe he's a Twin, then they could have started working 80hrs/week, every week, at age 14 1/2. Definitely sounds like management material to me.:)
:) I was working for a manager who happened to be a good friend of mine. He told me that his boss, our director, said "Technical staff are like tires. Wear 'em down to the rims and then just get new ones."
Uh, that doesn't sound like someone not willing to do extra work. That sounds like someone who isn't even doing their job. I was expecting you to end your post with "And then we fired that person for not showing up for work."
Allowing these type of people to keep their jobs is why those of us putting in the extra hours get fed up and stop doing it. You're paying this person the same amount as me, I'm assuming I'm a co-worker in this scenario. We put in 80 hours per week. I put in 60 and they put in 20 and we split the pay 50-50? F that. Give me half their salary and I'm completely fine with the 60 hours a week.
I always find myself doing the work of 3 or 4 people. I say, "Not a problem with me at all. Just pay me 3X my salary. HELL, I'll even take one for the team. Just pay me 2X my salary." So management hires in two more people at my salary rate and yet I still end up doing the work of 3 or 4 people. Half the time I just end up having to do more work because of them and have to rush, panic, drop plans/personal life because they were supposed to do something and didn't get it done, are nowhere to be found, can't be reached, and now I'm getting screwed at the last minute because I'll make sure it gets done when I could have had it done two weeks ago because I was able to plan out how to allocate my time.
Wow, reading this I think, "I am an idiot for being in this profession!"
Something to consider. Communications technology has advanced tremendously in the past 20 years. So now companies more and more are expanding internationally and even within the nation are being expected more and more to deliver 24x7. I don't think this was so much the case in the past. A forty hour week back then was probably a lot closer to a forty hour week. A forty hour week now a days is a lot closer to a sixty hour week. I'm additionally speculating here that then when you worked overtime you would be typically working on trying to get one thing done. When I'm willing to go the extra mile these days it seems more and more like I'm going the extra mile on 3 or 5 things. A few hours extra per each one adds up pretty quickly. Consider it the labor inflation rate. Technology making us more efficient seems to have almost backfired. Now that we can be twice as efficient we're expected to do four times as much.
Have to agree. My preferences as a tenured developer is to write code that matches the format and style the organization and team prefer. I could care less. You tell me how you want to code style. Putting your own personal signature on applications is arrogant and confusing. K.I.S.S. Likewise, I don't try to impose my own idea of what their design docs, requirements specs, release management process should be. I will definitely suggest alternatives that I think would be more effective and efficient and I will definitely assist and provide insight into process improvement, but at the end of the day, that call is management's decision not mine. And I have to respect that because I have no intention of working for that same company for the next 30 years.
Excellent comments so far. Sadly a vast majority of the places I've interviewed have bombarded me with the minutia of a programming language or process. Yet somehow I seemed to be working with about the same ratio of incompetent people at those places as the places where I was hired through a far less formal interview process. And actually I'm pretty sure there tended to be more incompetent people at those places. Just about anyone can memorize an API or process. Very few can troubleshoot an operational issue for shit.
Now that I've gotten 10+ years in this field under my belt I don't fill out applications (That's what a resume is for. You think I have time to fill out 50 individual applications every time I look for a new contract.)
And if I go into an interview and get asked how threading works or what method do you have to implement on the Serializable interface at least in my head I'm thanking you for my time and walking out the door.
I've been doing this for 13+ years. Worked for at least 20 different companies. I'm going to assume that you know a fair amount about programming if you're a software manager and you should be able to tell from my resume that I HAVE to at least know how to program.
The best interviews I have had are the ones where I ask the interviewer what they are doing from an application and systems perspective and I then highlight the positions that I've held that bear a strong similarity to the goofiness and deficiencies of what they are doing. I've yet to work for a company that did everything the most efficient, effective, pretty UML textbook way.
The strengths you get from senior developers are the fact that whatever messed up system you have for development they've probably encountered and know how to work effectively in. They should also have been involved in enough projects that they can immediately translate whatever business process you are trying to model to a similar project they have worked on in the past.
To toot my own horn, I'm one of the best there is in the industry. I'm not saying that there are not more talented people than me. There are. I rarely meet them where I'm working.
As that, I've noticed that I spend about 75% of my time ironing out the business processes behind the application and only 25% of my time developing code. It's not that I don't develop a lot of code. I'm usually a one man team developing the entire application and performing the DBA functions, release management, QA, etc. It's just that I've become so good at the development aspect from my experience that that component of the process is trivial to me.
I guess the best analogy would be to compare it to interviewing a bike courier. Would you feel the need to probe him with questions about how a bike works and if he knows how to change a tire? Or would you be more concerned with questions about how he conducts himself on the business side of his job? You'd think you could take it for granted that he can ride a bike. Sadly, in this profession, I guess that's just not the case. However, it's extremely annoying for those of us who've spent our entire schooling and careers mastering the subject to have to suffer through interviews where to return to my analogy, you're basically asking me, a professional Tour De France rider, to describe how to ride a bike so you can feel comfortable that I can actually ride one so that you'll hire me to deliver your packages for you. AND if I don't describe it exactly how you want to hear it, you'll say "I don't think that guy ever rode in the Tour De France. I don't think he even knows how to ride a bike."
Yes, It's hugely insulting. I pretty much consider those kinds of interviews a test to see how much insult I will take. Preparation for treating me like a piece of equipment once I work there.
Slashdot Mirror
So you know your WOEID? I could have sworn the article was talking about using a unique identifier to identify places that had nothing to do with their names because the name could potentially change.
And pretty sure long/lat is a little more precise than zip code, pretty universally easy to look up for any location and more amenable to wildcard searches and approximation.
"Yahoo! has been working for a while to promote a unified system for referring to places, through their Where On Earth IDs. Using a WOEID."
Isn't this also known as latitude and longitude? Or is that too 20th Century?
Don't F* with someone who lives with you if they know you're engaging in illegal activities.
"I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookiee win." - C3PO
Thank You! I'd Mod you up to +10 if it were an option.
SORRY, I THINK THIS WENT OT...
Frankly, I'm stunned that FOSS has taken off the way it has. I can't think of any other profession that provides their services for absolutely free. Musicians, no. Authors, no. Lawyers, Doctors, Clergy, Social Workers? No. Closest example I can think of would be the Clergy or Doctors doing "Doctors Without Borders". They don't do it for free. Their transportation is paid for by a 3rd party. Their shelter paid for by 3rd party. Their food paid for by 3rd party. All required equipment/supplies paid for by 3rd party. They may not be "making" any money, but it's not for free. Don't get me wrong. I love the ideology behind it. I just wish it had been in place before I got into programming for a PROFESSION. I would've chosen a career where I'm not competing against free labor for my livelihood and then I too would program for free.
I've seen criticism of the available FOSS groupware. ?!?!?!?!?! Groupware is a business app. There's plenty of free mail services, etc. on the web for individuals. Why the hell is anyone making free software for businesses?!
Reminds me of that commercial where they're asking the kids what they want to be when they grow up. Little kid says, "Someday, I want to work my way up into middle management."
Yeah, I remember when I was 6 thinking "When I grow up I'm going to be a programmer and write free groupware for businesses."
Sorry, end of anti-FOSS rant.
Now, anti-FOSS practicality:
The reason MAC and Windows are able to compete with free software is that you are paying to
1. Not have to know or understand any of the details behind their implementations.
2. Everything that is supposed to work does out of the box.
3. If a major issue exists in the software there is a very high probability it will be fixed in the next release.
4. If you can't wait for the next release you can pay them to fix it or give you a viable workaround.
If they gave away cars for free but people had to build it themselves from the ground up do you think everyone would stop buying cars? Linux people would and would think everyone else is a sucker. Non-Linux IT people would think it a fun project, but they would still buy a car to get to work. Non IT people would not think it fun at all and would just buy a car to get where they need to go.
Lastly, if it's free, why do you care if people don't want to use it?? What do you have to gain? Clearly there must be something in it for you if you care. And if there's something in it, well then, philisophically at least, it's not really free. Ie, It's worth the cost of the inconvenience to the layman. It's worth the cost of the elimination of programming as a profession. It's worth the cost of highly intelligent people going into non-technical professions so that they can earn a living. It's worth the cost of some other unknown variable I haven't considered, so that we can all get software that performs services for us for free. I'm not a Good vs. Evil kind of guy so I'm not making any judgements about it being right or wrong. Just being cliche in quoting "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
I like the name of the technology, 'Face Observation Opera Language'. Cause that's what you'd look like using it.
I graduated with a BS in CS in '95. Actually think it may have been a BA. I originally started out in EE for 3 years but all my co-op was programming and everyone insisted that was where EE was going, all programming. So I didn't see the point of ruining my social life just to become a programmer.
First off,
Degree Track - Business Profession (Out of School):
BS EE, Masters CS - Programmer
BS CS - Administrator
MIS - Help Desk
Basically, without work experience (and working while going to school, as I discovered the hard way, apparently doesn't count. Should've been a bartender instead of working in the lab.) they'll consider you qualified for one "step" lower than your degree.
Secondly,
Within 4 years (Thank you dot-com boom. You are sorely missed.) of graduating I was making $100/hr as a programmer. Had to work my way into programming for the 1st two years. Once I hit that level an advanced degree was pretty much useless to me. I had the opportunity to begin working with SAP at the time but passed on it in favor of the more universal Java programming not knowing how long this SAP thing would last. I had seen too many Lotus Notes and Cobol programmers scrambling to get back on a healthy career track. To this day I am still at a price point that makes getting a graduate degree a bad investment. But I'd be making a whole lot more if I had seen the future of SAP and the Java programmer market. Now I'm saving up to go back to grad school. Not for more money. I could be retired in 10 years if I keep up at the pace I'm at and going back will just delay that at least 5 years. I'm going back because I'm sick of writing business apps I have no personal interest in.
Bottom line:
No one knows what will be lucrative 5 years from now. You could end up a very pissed off individual if you guess and are wrong.
You need a BS but after that work experience pretty much levels out an advanced degree (until you explicitly need it to get where you want to go next and THEN you get it) and I've seen instances where it has actually hurt the individual as some potential employers see academia types as not interested in getting their hands dirty with the actual working part of the job.
As has been emphasized here several times already. Proceed to the graduate level because you are actually fascinated with the subject matter you will be studying. That's what graduate degrees are for. And honestly, I may not go back to grad school. I can always look up the courses I'm interested in and find out what books/materials they are using and just learn the material myself. If I'm honestly just fascinated by the subject matter then a graduate degree is just an unneccessary cost that takes away money for materials/studying. The point of that was not to disparage graduate programs (I've discounted the value in being surrounded in an environment of your peers and mentors who are also fascinated by the same thing you are. That is huge.), it was more to suggest that graduate school itself has its own career track more often than not leading into the business of college administration.
That being said, hiding out in a graduate program for a couple years till the economy improves isn't such a bad idea either.
Who wants to start a satellite internet company? Even with it's horrible upload speeds, looks like they (and all of these other countries thinking of imposing mandatory censorship) could give satellite a chance to make a comeback. Good thing Australia doesn't have a strong space program...yet.
"That's right I said it. The Moon! And we ain't stoppin there! Read my lips. M A R S. Mars Bitches!"
Or as we like to say in the software business. "It's not a 'Bug' it's a 'Feature'."
On your side on this topic, but...
I'd rather flinch even when I know someone isn't actually going to hit me than not flinch when someone is. :)
Accelerated heartbeat when you know it is only a movie. Isn't that what makes it fun and exciting?
Goosebumps when you know you have no hair to fluff. Ok, don't have much to refute on this, but pretty sure it served and may still serve some useful, if trivial, purpose. Goosebumps are no hair off my back.
Even the annoying sensation of cold when you know you are able to maintain core temperature. Better than getting frostbite because you got distracted and forgot to consciously monitor your core temperature.
My point is, I don't consider these "Bugs" in our software. I consider them for the most part critical vital responses to stimuli that have been hardwired into our brains because they have proven to fit the 90+% rule over the eons and it is far more efficient and beneficial to our survival and reproduction to respond immediately to them in this way. Same with our emotions.
If someone hits you in the face you get mad and usually respond by striking them back. If it's your best friend and it was an accident you question these irrational "buggy" emotions. But your friend will almost never accidentally hit you in the face. 90+% of the time some aggressor is potentially trying to kill you and if you had to take the time every time to consciously decide if this is an action that requires reprisal or further defense and then consciously send the proper signals for your metabolism to speed up and your senses to heighten and clench fist, etc. The person with the "buggy", inefficient emotions would have already killed you or at least critically injured you. Thus its persistence in the gene pool.
Now on the other side of the coin. If I burnt my hand on the stove when I was 3 and developed an acute fear of the stove as a result which prevented me from going near it as result of the intense emotional response this would be detrimental to my wellbeing. If I could remove the intense emotional response it would greatly benefit me. The downside? The article didn't say anything about removing the actual memory just the correlating emotional response to it. I think the memory should be enough to keep me from putting my hand on the stove again and I'm pretty confident that even without the memory as an adult I'd know better than to do so.
Bottom line...
Hardwired 90+% correct instant responses to potentially dangerous stimuli. Yay.
Softer wired conscious ability to override these responses on a case by case basis after the fact as time permits. Yay.
No instant hardwired response to dangerous stimuli and complete constant reliance on conscience decision making for all external events. Boo.
Inability to override hardwired responses despite solid conscience evidence to do so. Boo.
If I built two robots with the last two criteria the first one would consciously decide to bludgeon me to death for making it uncompetitive with reactional models. The second one would bludgeon me to death in a uncontrollable rage.
I didn't have to jump off a house and break my leg to know I couldn't fly and I didn't have stick my hand into a fire to figure out it burns. And if I had I don't think I would still need to have those memories now to know those things. And it would REALLY suck if every time I recalled those memories my body fully re-experienced the pain of those events. That would be pretty unnecessary. Of course it would definitely keep me from trying those things again, but pretty sure I could just figure that out with at the very least just the memory and not pain recurrence.
Tesla Coils are very cool. And I've seen a lot of renewed interest lately in their applications for wireless power distribution.
I had a few rats crashing at my place a couple of years ago. They got in through the dryer duct. Apparently, there was no cover on the outside. They were headed up by their indian chief "StealsMySocks". When it was all over with and I finally discovered they were coming and going through the dryer duct hole, I found over a half dozen socks stuffed in the duct hole. I had two dogs (one pit bull, one rhodesian ridgeback/lab) and I picked up a stray cat thinking she'd take care of em. I think the lab got one. The cat one or two. Pit bull nothing. There were always 3 or more running around the house. They mostly lived in my couches in my living room. Got one with the tape strips, that was gruesome, but they mostly managed to avoid them. None with the old school traps. Now one thing I noticed that no one else has mentioned is that the reason no one method works is because they generally have multiple motives for being somewhere. In my case, they never bothered with the kitchen, even though it was between the utility room and the living room where they hung out. So they weren't interested in my food. Apparently, they got plently of that on the outside. No, they were in it for the luxury accommodations. So before I went to the last resort and got an exterminator I decided to try out one of those ultrasonic emitters they claim they can't stand. Plugged it in and sure enough. Drove them right out. Never heard from them again. So depending on what they're after, ie, if it's peace and quiet, an emitter should work.
Well I, for one, welcome our new PRT Overlords!
Sorry for misspelling "too". My impossibly hot, ninja chick, systems analyst, security expert, co-worker just walked by my cube.
Really? I've always been waaay to distracted by the ridiculousness of an impossibly hot ninja chick doing it to notice the technology errors.
BTW, I don't think that actually qualifies as a cliche as it doesn't express a popular thought or idea. However, you are correct in that it was an improperly negated statement.
When the Palms originally came out I thought that it would be a good opportunity to make an entry into the gaming industry. I didn't get the impression that I could probably ever make enough to support myself doing it and so I didn't pursue it. Not sure exactly how your app works, but MySpace has been starting to offer some, kind of neat, old-old school style, turn based apps and when I first started fooling around with them I immediately thought that this was a very promising new avenue for entry into the market. I'd highly recommend checking out some of the games to get a feel for if your game could be ported and get an idea of how you could generate a revenue stream. Downside. You'd be giving your game out for free, so no revenue from game sales. Upside. The business model basically involves you selling bonuses, upgrades, etc for the game. I kind of like this idea better myself as the main reason I didn't go after the Palm market was that I immediately realized that I personally wouldn't spend money to download a game onto my Palm and there were plenty of free ones available so who would pay me for mine? However, on Mafia Wars on MySpace for example, I've even been half tempted to spend a few bucks on some upgrades even though they don't even sell anything you can't get for free with patience. I'm not one to spend my money on frivolous things like ring tones, but it's a multi-million dollar industry. So I'm sure there are plenty of people who spend money on this kind of stuff. If your game is popular you could quite possibly make some decent cash just selling some different skins for it. Let me know if you decide to go this route and want any help with the port as I'm quite curious about their API and have some ideas myself for some possible apps.
I'd tend to agree with you on this one. I'm getting closer and closer to the point where I've become successful enough that I don't really have to have a job at any particular point in time. I didn't go into this profession so much for the money. I do indeed greatly enjoy programming. As I like to say, "What do you want your computer to do? Make you breakfast? K." What I didn't go into this profession for is to deal with unreasonable deadlines and expectations, tracking every hour of my time, being at their beck and call 24x7, and lack of planning on their part constituting an emergency on mine. So given that, I'd much rather get my money, get out and write code that I want to write, when and how I want to write it. I would think that the best of the best generally tend to go that route. I'm sure there are a lucky few who happen to fall into a company whose mission statement lines up cosmically with their own, but probably very few.
About your signature... 1048576 if you're good.
80 hours per week, every week, for 17 years. Started at age 6. What's the problem? I've doubled up jobs several times. This sounds completely plausible to me. ;) Maybe he's a Twin, then they could have started working 80hrs/week, every week, at age 14 1/2. Definitely sounds like management material to me. :)
:) I was working for a manager who happened to be a good friend of mine. He told me that his boss, our director, said "Technical staff are like tires. Wear 'em down to the rims and then just get new ones."
Uh, that doesn't sound like someone not willing to do extra work. That sounds like someone who isn't even doing their job. I was expecting you to end your post with "And then we fired that person for not showing up for work." Allowing these type of people to keep their jobs is why those of us putting in the extra hours get fed up and stop doing it. You're paying this person the same amount as me, I'm assuming I'm a co-worker in this scenario. We put in 80 hours per week. I put in 60 and they put in 20 and we split the pay 50-50? F that. Give me half their salary and I'm completely fine with the 60 hours a week. I always find myself doing the work of 3 or 4 people. I say, "Not a problem with me at all. Just pay me 3X my salary. HELL, I'll even take one for the team. Just pay me 2X my salary." So management hires in two more people at my salary rate and yet I still end up doing the work of 3 or 4 people. Half the time I just end up having to do more work because of them and have to rush, panic, drop plans/personal life because they were supposed to do something and didn't get it done, are nowhere to be found, can't be reached, and now I'm getting screwed at the last minute because I'll make sure it gets done when I could have had it done two weeks ago because I was able to plan out how to allocate my time. Wow, reading this I think, "I am an idiot for being in this profession!"
Something to consider. Communications technology has advanced tremendously in the past 20 years. So now companies more and more are expanding internationally and even within the nation are being expected more and more to deliver 24x7. I don't think this was so much the case in the past. A forty hour week back then was probably a lot closer to a forty hour week. A forty hour week now a days is a lot closer to a sixty hour week. I'm additionally speculating here that then when you worked overtime you would be typically working on trying to get one thing done. When I'm willing to go the extra mile these days it seems more and more like I'm going the extra mile on 3 or 5 things. A few hours extra per each one adds up pretty quickly. Consider it the labor inflation rate. Technology making us more efficient seems to have almost backfired. Now that we can be twice as efficient we're expected to do four times as much.
Have to agree. My preferences as a tenured developer is to write code that matches the format and style the organization and team prefer. I could care less. You tell me how you want to code style. Putting your own personal signature on applications is arrogant and confusing. K.I.S.S. Likewise, I don't try to impose my own idea of what their design docs, requirements specs, release management process should be. I will definitely suggest alternatives that I think would be more effective and efficient and I will definitely assist and provide insight into process improvement, but at the end of the day, that call is management's decision not mine. And I have to respect that because I have no intention of working for that same company for the next 30 years.
Excellent comments so far. Sadly a vast majority of the places I've interviewed have bombarded me with the minutia of a programming language or process. Yet somehow I seemed to be working with about the same ratio of incompetent people at those places as the places where I was hired through a far less formal interview process. And actually I'm pretty sure there tended to be more incompetent people at those places. Just about anyone can memorize an API or process. Very few can troubleshoot an operational issue for shit.
Now that I've gotten 10+ years in this field under my belt I don't fill out applications (That's what a resume is for. You think I have time to fill out 50 individual applications every time I look for a new contract.)
And if I go into an interview and get asked how threading works or what method do you have to implement on the Serializable interface at least in my head I'm thanking you for my time and walking out the door.
I've been doing this for 13+ years. Worked for at least 20 different companies. I'm going to assume that you know a fair amount about programming if you're a software manager and you should be able to tell from my resume that I HAVE to at least know how to program.
The best interviews I have had are the ones where I ask the interviewer what they are doing from an application and systems perspective and I then highlight the positions that I've held that bear a strong similarity to the goofiness and deficiencies of what they are doing. I've yet to work for a company that did everything the most efficient, effective, pretty UML textbook way.
The strengths you get from senior developers are the fact that whatever messed up system you have for development they've probably encountered and know how to work effectively in. They should also have been involved in enough projects that they can immediately translate whatever business process you are trying to model to a similar project they have worked on in the past.
To toot my own horn, I'm one of the best there is in the industry. I'm not saying that there are not more talented people than me. There are. I rarely meet them where I'm working.
As that, I've noticed that I spend about 75% of my time ironing out the business processes behind the application and only 25% of my time developing code. It's not that I don't develop a lot of code. I'm usually a one man team developing the entire application and performing the DBA functions, release management, QA, etc. It's just that I've become so good at the development aspect from my experience that that component of the process is trivial to me.
I guess the best analogy would be to compare it to interviewing a bike courier. Would you feel the need to probe him with questions about how a bike works and if he knows how to change a tire? Or would you be more concerned with questions about how he conducts himself on the business side of his job? You'd think you could take it for granted that he can ride a bike. Sadly, in this profession, I guess that's just not the case. However, it's extremely annoying for those of us who've spent our entire schooling and careers mastering the subject to have to suffer through interviews where to return to my analogy, you're basically asking me, a professional Tour De France rider, to describe how to ride a bike so you can feel comfortable that I can actually ride one so that you'll hire me to deliver your packages for you. AND if I don't describe it exactly how you want to hear it, you'll say "I don't think that guy ever rode in the Tour De France. I don't think he even knows how to ride a bike."
Yes, It's hugely insulting. I pretty much consider those kinds of interviews a test to see how much insult I will take. Preparation for treating me like a piece of equipment once I work there.