Erm...I hate to nitpick, but isn't HTML just a subset of SGML, which was developed in America? And the world really didn't sit up and notice until NCSA created Mosaic, anyway. Not that Europe should be discounted - there have been many great contributions - Linux is one major recent one.
While I'll agree it's hard to attribute so many concepts to the correct places, we can probably safely say that, in comparison to TCP/IP, HTML/HTTP is pretty trivial stuff...and there is no "web" without TCP/IP.
Yet another hate-America-first'er shooting from the hip, apparently. Thing is, would anyone use a Euro-net? I doubt it...as much as the elitists might hate the fact, America is where it's at, and the masses have decided. This schmoe probably wants to segregate Europe from Hollywood and CNN, etc.
Sounds like some folks at the top desperately need to read Peopleware. I thought hoteling was an idea whose time has come and gone...trying to treat knowledge workers like factory workers is really, really stupid. The idea that workers might be a company's biggest asset is a really threatening concept to some companies, apparently, and I think that some of this bizarre behavior is indicative of that.
Also, just because it is easy to admin doesn't mean that it justifies this soulless environment.
Yup. The poster you are replying to needs to read After The Gold Rush to get an idea of what is needed, and why. I'm all for limited gov't myself, but sometimes a tiny bit of regulation is a good thing. Not all engineers do life-threatening things, and they need to be certified. Why is software any different.
I for one am tired of having my resume being compared side-by-side with "self-made" programmers (or worse, johnny-come-latelys) who have very little or spotty experience, but who will probably work for less. Sometimes these people can pull their weight, but nine times out of ten, I end up being dragged down by them if I have to work side-by-side with them. They give ridiculous timelines, drastically underestimate the complexity of some problems, hardcode things that should not be hardcoded, etc., etc.
It's like hiring a recent high school grad to do EE or Chem E and saying "well, ANYONE can learn this...it's easy". Software development is NOT EASY to do efficiently, correctly, with realistic estimates, etc...certification of some kind is not a magic bullet, but it should raise the bar to admission and help keep the bozo quotient down. The internet boom was a mixed blessing - made for plenty of jobs for anyone, including good people. The downside was that so many bad people were in the mix, and I had to work with scores of them, it seems - many with the attitude, "well, I don't need a degree, don't you feel dumb for getting a Comp Sci degree?" The answer is, and still is, no. You see, I still have a job, at least for now, after a two-month hiatus. These folks have to back to burger-flipping or whatever. Or go back to school or go to school for the first time.
The unfortunate thing is that I have to work at an interview or other correspondence to convince PHBs and recruiters and HR folks that what I have matters to them - I've already proven myself in a way, but it's not recognized but by a few elite right now, and it can be very frustrating. The problem is that this isn't just a problem for me; it is damaging to the industry over the long haul.
Hmm. It seems that 7% hardly approaches the 90% of the general population, so that may say something. However, I am a bit concerned with both the measured population and how it may have been asked - the terminology "personal God" may have markedly changed the outcome. For example, Stephen Hawking mentions God several times in his book (title escapes me at the moment), but I'm not sure that he would have answered that survey as having a belief in a "personal God". Also, and more importantly, since it was one subset of scientists, in this age of Political Correctness and the view that some government folks (and not just in schools) hold towards any public display of faith, the very environment of fear that might have created cannot be discounted.
Even accounting for that, I'm surprised to see these numbers so high. I'd still like to see the results from an anonymous, carefully worded survey of a more general set of scientists.
Argh. You stole my thunder.:) I was going to make the same point. Rabid anti-evolutionists will never understand that evolution is NOT a belief system, and they will never understand that it's certainly not some scientific conspiracy - I haven't seen numbers, but I'd wager that the population of scientists approaches the same levels of faith as the general population.
Work for smaller companies or for the software development teams in a larger corp. Smaller companies tend to be MUCH less draconian (typically because you also wear the admin hat; there is no IT department, per se) and it's kind of hard to build a case for killing the lifeblood of a software development team even in big corps - spam blocking, porn blocking, virus blocking, etc., all make sense in the big picture - but just shutting it down? For programmers, that's like tying one arm behind your back and then saying, "okay, get back to work, you! Why aren't you typing faster?!"
I also imagine that the "authorized personnel" in the article will tend to be executives, upper management, their favorite little cute secretaries, etc...in other words, politically-based, not based on any real need.
Uh, well, the map of telecommuting territory also requires a boss and/or company that understands one can manage software projects without physically watching people - sadly, too many managers come from the school of packers, and there are far too few mappers out there...software is not an assembly line.
I have had broadband access for 2.5 years now, and I have yet to have a manager that would allow me to work from home. One manager at the last company (a complete dolt) came just shy of firing someone who said they would be working from home while their house was getting painted...the boss claimed that only hours worked at the office can count for any hours on a timesheet. Another time I was at a client where all the project managers consistently worked from home (laughable - they were all terribly incompetent, incompetency ran rampant at this client like no one's business - if I didn't witness some of the things I saw myself, there's no way I'd believe it if someone else told me it happened at a place they worked) and very rarely, in bad weather, would let their FTE's work from home - but NEVER, EVER their consultants. Needless to say, both of these companies are struggling to just keep their doors open right now, so maybe there is something to old assembly-line type management techniques vs. management that software is best done in - I think Peopleware should be required reading for anyone doing any software management at all.
Depends on where you are building it. On FreeBSD, using the ports, it's not such a big deal, IIRC. Debian may provide a similar ease of building with it's tools.
Re:One simple reason why it won't work:
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Q: What do you call someone who speaks one language?
A: American.
Also:
A: Canadian.
A: Chinese.
Applies just as much, but not quite as funny, because they aren't on top of the heap.
Re:Issues with the euro in day-to-day life
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Buy anything in America and you get a fist-full of ones.
You should end up with four ones at the most. How is that a fistful? I usually buy everything with cash; I use a money clip and usually carry $100-$300. The scarcity of $2 bills hasn't been a problem for me, ever. Having lots of $1 bills always comes in handy when eating out - just leave the proper amount and go. No waiting for server to break a yuppie food stamp, no waiting for stupid debit card and signing it.
Re:Are we becoming like star trek?
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
...but I will wager you'll never see empires like the USA or China give up their sovereignty.
Well, I don't care what China ends up doing, but here's to hoping the U.S. never hands over its sovereignty. All will have been for naught, because no world government's Constitution will ever approximate what U.S. citizens enjoy, esp. if that world government grows out of the EU or UN models - it's bound to be an oppressive socialist state that does not recognize full freedom of speech (well, besides things like yelling fire in a crowded theater) and, most importantly, the right to keep and bear arms. George Orwell, call your office.
Re:No, more like the Soviet Union
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
If you would look at what cliton shredded, it was for his on protection for the most part. Bla.. bla blow job. And for silly reasons such has that.
LOL. Oh, you're killing me here, thanks for the laugh. Are you for real? Are you going to university? Don't believe everything your prof says.
Clinton was THE biggest violator of the Constitution. Here's a very small list:
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe42-19980727-03. ht ml
There are many others, including executive orders SIGNING OVER AMERICAN LAND to be the property of the UN. Then there's his infamous pardons at the end.Then there are all the allegations about the mysterious deaths of folks who maybe were a little too close to him. That's veering into conspiracy-land, but no other president has had so many ties and suspicions circling them, not even JFK. I mean, at least JFK didn't have allegations of outright TREASON circling him (selling secrets to China) And yet, Clinton apologists continue to support the notion that Clinton's perjury was "to save his family" and "just about sex". To think I voted for the no-good piece of white trash in 1992...in any case, I'm sure years down the road, most of the facts will start to turn up. It's kind of scary that Bush signed something preventing a much-needed investigation into Clinton...very odd, but I suspect it's a matter of the powerful watching out for each other.
How long will it take to fix Mr. "Populer vote means nothing" Bush's...
ROTFLMAO!!!! As for the popular vote, it doesn't mean anything, and it never was meant to. I didn't vote for Bush, I voted Libertarian, so I guess I know how the common man might feel cheated. But folks who actually know the system know the electoral college is there so that New York and California aren't the only places where candidates have to go on the campaign trail, and "feelings" on the election matter not at all - facts do. And don't talk of a "stolen election" - the closest thing that can be shown of any rigging was that black REPUBLICAN voters may have been disenfranchised. Hmmmm...it's almost funny (if so many people didn't actually believe it) that Democrats and NAACP-types are claiming that Bush stole the election - how the hell could they do that, when the counties that Gore wanted to recount were Democrat-controlled?
As for "bashing gay and atheists" I haven't seen that, and even if I had, how is "bashing" shredding any Constitution? That's just free speech, unpopular as it may be. Just because someone disagrees with a certain worldview, doesn't mean that person is a homophobe (whatever that word means) or radical Christian. Why is that a person's personal views only matter if they are on the right? If they are on the left, it's never called into question.
Why do liberals feel they can jam THEIR religions/political/economical views down the populace's throat any more than someone on the right? I know, when a conservative tries to do the same, it's hate speech, I forgot. And what economical view is Ashcroft "jamming down" the throat of a country that has strong roots in capitalism anyway? If you want something else (communism, socialism), move somewhere else. Anything Bush's administration is pushing for dovetails quite nicely with what a lot of Americans want, and also with a strong TRADITION of all three: religion/political/economical...did you know that over 80% of Americans claim they are Christian? Where's the problem in having officials who are openly Christian, too? You obviously sympathize with gays; why do you want Christians to be "closeted" any more than you would want gays to be closeted? Why do liberals always want their politics to reflect some perfect utopia in their own mind, rather than reality?
For the record, I am AGNOSTIC, so I don't really care what religious beliefs people in power hold as long as I am not forced to do anything I don't want. They can believe in faeries for all I care. Separation of church and state was only there to prevent something akin to Inquisition, and that's not too bloody likely. People are just WAY too touchy when someone like Ashcroft says he's a conservative Christian, like he's got horns or something. If you grab twenty folks from U.S completey randomly, you're bound to come up with at least one or two people who agree with Ashcroft for the most part.
There are some things done that I have some concern about when it comes to Ashcroft*, but believe me, I feel much more comfortable having him in office after Reno. Good grief, she was in no way even qualified for the job, and the Dems were grilling Ashcroft during Senate hearings like he was the next Hitler, and claiming they were concerned about his personal views, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, Reno should be investigated for her "work" during Hitlery and Bill's reign.
*And military tribunals for non-citizens are NOT one of my concerns. There is plenty of precent for this. My concerns with Ashcroft are kind of nebulous right now, and I can't really name any one thing he's done that I can put my finger on and say, "Now that's just dictatorship in disguise." But I'm watching him. I'm a tad nervous.
Re:No, more like the Soviet Union
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
You said it. Do you know that the EPA actually has ARMED agents now? WTF does the EPA need armed agents for? I'd question any government agent at ALL being armed, because of (I think) the 10th Amendment, which basically says, any rights not specifically granted to the government, the government does not have. The right to keep and bear arms is without a doubt granted to individual citizens, but I'm not so sure about Random J. Agency having them.
And you are correct, the executive order is an abhorrent thing - Clinton was one of the biggest abusers. He and Hitlery ruled like a pair of aristocrats, or worse, despots, that considered themselves completely above the law. How people can STILL continue to sing their praises is beyond me. Of course, the same people who sing their praises are screaming about Ashcroft "shredding the Constitution". What a joke - they better look to their hero to see who has shredded the Constitution.
Re:Are we becoming like star trek?
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 1
Ugh. That's crazy. What the world doesn't need is a world government. The EU is *already* starting to show signs of oppressive behavior, and they don't have the monopoly that a world government would have.
Britain has the right idea trying to keep their head out of that noose. And the U.S. would be crazy to enter into any kind of EU or world government relationship - in fact, we should withdraw from the UN as soon as possible. The UN is an absolute farce, and lately has been nothing but a podium for every teapot dictator on the planet with a beef with the "imperialist" U.S.
Personally, I think we should adopt a policy of "benign neglect" when it comes to other countries. George Washington, I believe, was one of the founding fathers who warned against entanglements with other countries. "Benign neglect" would mean just that - no aid, unless it was privately raised and distributed (Red Cross), no propping up of governments we like to get/keep oil flowing - no engaging in war, unless it was a direct attack (Pearl Harbor, WTC/Pentagon attacks, for example), regardless of the injustices that are going on.
Not only would this save us tons of money, it would also prompt us to explore alternative sources of energy, which would result in no other country being able to control our industries. It would also, and this is the most important: it would give all the dumbasses out there no more ammo to use against us...for example, every stupid little Islamic paper blames US for an economic embargo on Iraq that could easily be lifted.
A world government would be terrible in taxes, too: the UN has already displayed an interest in being able to tax individuals within countries. This means that you would not only be paying local, state, federal, social security, and medicare taxes, you'd also be paying UN taxes.
And any rights you have as a citizen under the Constitution of the United States - well, you can just throw them out the window. All this talk about Ashcroft "shredding the Constitution" will be laughable compared to what a world government will do to the Constitution. There are very good reasons for having sovereign nations.
I suggest you adopt a "wait-and-see" attitude when it comes to the EU and whether we have any business being part of it. I suspect time will prove me right - we may even end up fighting to liberate countries from the EU at some future point. Whenever someone suggest we need to be more like Europe, I always chuckle and go over in my head just how great Europe was that someone like Hitler could nearly run the whole affair if it wasn't for us. Europe also produced Napoleon and Mussolini...I wouldn't be so quick to step in the same steps as Europe, and I can understand why Britain wants to hold back, too.
Create a global constitution, get most of the people (not politicians) to sign off on it, and we should have a world where human rights are better in all countries, pollution is minimized , and the government is still slave to the people (unlike the UN)
Speaking for paranoid types like me, the UN is aiming to make sure to IGNORE all the good sense you displayed above - they view our Second Amendment as a human rights issue - as a strike AGAINST human rights. Pretty strange, since the Second Amendment should really be the First Amendment, since it's arguably one of the most important key to remaining free. Apparently the EU is already displaying the same kind of sentiment - they are coming down on people who happened to speak out on the EU - freedom of speech is okay in the EU, as long as you don't criticize the EU, apparently.
Personally, I can think of nothing worse than one world government - even if it is cast in the style that the U.S. was...because governments tend to attract little people with big plans for you and me...and they rarely involve freedom for the little guy. If there would be no place to flee oppressive governments, what would individuals and corporations that are being treated unkindly do? The only recourse would be a violent revolution. Not good. And if you think Islam has radical factions NOW, wait until they actually WOULD have to live under the rule of the "infidel". And radical Christians even here would view a New World Order (which a one world government would be to them) as a sign of the impending Apocalypse. They probably wouldn't hijack planes and try to kill innocent civilians like cavemen savages who have barely discovered fire and think we are living in the 12th century (al-Qaeda), but I doubt their behavior would be something we want, either.
...but the odds are about even that when we find a solution - it will come without education
I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not going to agree that there is a 50/50 chance of this...things of this magnitude just aren't as easily done by lone inventors and geniuses anymore - the financial requirements alone are probably the most prohibitive. Maybe a 1% chance, if I were a betting man. Yes, there are plenty of examples of self-taught people unleashing their creative powers in ways that drastically altered the course of things, but those examples are hard to come by these days...this is why companies like AT&T threw money at a prof of mine who chose his specialization in Genetic Algorithms - they had/have an intractable problem they wanted him to unleash his specialization on. I'm sure they also funded other such profs. I'm sure that companies that can turn a profit from breakthroughs ARE betting on such things, and so they think their best bet is on the folks with degrees.
One modern day argument in your favor, BTW, is Dean Kamen - but he at least started university. He has made outstanding achievements, obviously, and so shows that it can be done, but for every one of him, there are probably dozens or more of teams of degreed folks cranking on things...one advantage someone like him does have is that he can stop and turn on a dime - he only has to convince himself of some new course of action.
I agree that there is plenty of problems with institutions, and they can tend to get into ruts of doctrine - but if someone comes up with something new, and it can be properly peer-reviewed, even the oldest and stodgiest of profs/researchers cannot reject it...the curious people you describe often end up with degrees - because the people they want to be in contact with usually run in university circles. Some end up in R&D, others don't...but the curious/intelligent types continue to learn all their lives. My father and my grandfather were both examples of people who had no degrees, and yet continued/continue to learn their whole lives, both learned many different skills (I remember visiting my grandfather once in the mid 80's, and he had a C-64, and had taught himself assembler...once in the early 90's, when I visited him, he was doing CAD work - he did this kind of thing until he passed, and it wasn't just confined to computers by any extent) - and often inspired the inner geek/scientist/mechanic/carpenter/what-have-you in those around them. I hope that my degree never makes me lose sight of that fact, and that I never become so arrogant as to ignore valid ideas from folks like my father and grandfather.
Also, as I said before, for the average schmoe chug-n-plug type of jobs, degrees can be overrated, esp. after a number of years of experience, and esp. in non-technical work.
P.S. When's the last time you read something published in journals the likes of JAMA that were non-degreed? Like it or not, we're not living in the Industrialized Age anymore...
There is less evidence to suggest that "educated" people do better jobs than "uneducated" people - than there is that "colored" people do poorer that "whites."
Oops, you didn't set the "less than" low enough. There is PLENTY of evidence that, for example, blacks are doing worse than whites - 60% of black fourth-graders can't read. I don't know what the white stat is, but it certainly isn't 60%. In other words, this comparison doesn't help your argument.
I agree that many non-classically trained folks have done great things...but classically trained (ie, university training) people have gone much, much further in the realm of advancements during the past century - of that there is little doubt. Think about it: would you rather, as a large government agency, throw your money for research for cancer at people with PhDs or people who were self-taught? When was the last time a squeeze of more memory on a HD, or more layers on DVD, etc. was done by a non-degreed person or team?
As for the humdrum daily grind of the business world, yes, there are more examples there of successes of non-degreed folks - but that requires a go-to type of attitude, and glad-handing the right people, etc...in other words, mostly people skills and the right breeding, for the most part (that's where the term "management hair" comes from)...typical primate behavior. And very little of that can be obtained via earning a university degree. In that arena, I couldn't agree more with you...but in the realm of the highly skilled, I think your argument falls apart.
In any case, I'll answer the question at face value:
Nothing against you personally, but I hope that there is NOT such a "fast track". It sounds like you jumped into the workforce during boom time to make a fast buck. No problem with that, but many of us busted our balls and bank accounts taking the long journey to a BSCS, and the whole idea of someone snaking their way around it is, well, pretty insulting. I've worked with plenty of very good and very bad programmers, and most of the very good had a BS in something - usually engineering of some type or CS. I have yet to work with someone I consider very good who does not have any degree at all. There were plenty of average hackers who were recent high school grads, but no one outstanding.
One of these high school grads, just before I was moved to another project, was assigned as PM of a project!!! Over several people who had MANY more years of experience + BSCS. Well, I'm glad I went to another project, believe me. It's a long and silly story about stupid people in management having no respect for academic folks, and just loving yes-men and brown-nosers instead of people who give honest and useful criticism, but the result was this: the project failed. Hit the pavement hard. And it was no surprise to anyone but the dumbass in management who made the decision to have this guy be PM. The resentment of those on the team for having this snake, who had done little to prove himself either in the workplace(besides buddying up to the boss) or academia, placed in charge of their project was inexcusable - people on that project quit left and right, and by the time I got back from the client I was on, every last one of them was gone. They didn't really seem to ever acknowledge their mistake to anyone in an open forum, but they did end up firing the guy because he started asking for too much money.
Long story short: get your degree. You will be held in higher esteem for it. As for those trade schools, they have their place, but they aren't very well respected, IMHO. I've actually seen managers chuckle softly when reading those on resumes, in fact, and then chucking them in the trash...and that's when it was supposedly so hard to find developers.
Last: What does the amount of civil rights organizations have to do with this? Are there really more of such organizations in the US (as compared to the EU)? Please give me some facts. And then think about why this could be....maybe they're simply needed more in the US?
Can't speak for the US/Europe numbers in civil rights organizations, but the overwhelming amount of "civil rights" groups we have now seem more interested in pushing radical agendas and/or extorting money from corporations, since they've largely achieved their original goals - now they are just industries, for the most part. And with all the PC nonsense flying about, it's almost impossible to shine the light of truth on these folks without getting accused of "hate speech".
The ACLU is so damned concerned about someone maybe mentioning God in public schools, for example, and I don't remember a PEEP from them when the Know Your Customer legislation was on the table. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition seems to be landing his buddies lots of cash money, but doing little about, say, getting vouchers for inner-city kids to be able to have selection for schools. NOW bent over and grabbed their ankles for Bill Clinton when he was accused of rape - even though it would seem he would represent all they should denounce, at least on an individual level. The NAACP even claimed Bill Clinton was an "alpha male" and should enjoy the spoils of such. Once again, selling themselves out for the support his administration gave them. Yes, these are the organizations that claim to look out for the little guy. When they are not doing things like the above, they are demanding special treatment that flies in the face of equality. Many do it while stuffing their own pockets full of money and still maintaining tax exempt status. I wouldn't count on too much of an outcry from any of these guys over an RF-enabled currency here.
The USA, despite its poor track record under the current administration, is the only country I would trust not to invade our lives through the currency we use.
And what track record is that? I must have missed the memo. IIRC, the "Know Your Customer" legislation was something that was almost slipped in under the radar during the Clinton administration. Clinton also continued to escalate the War on Some Drugs spending like never before. All these machinations were set in motion long before his tenure, but his administration didn't do much to stop them, either. Oh yeah, then there's the Clipper chip. I bet ol' Bill would have lo-o-o-ved the ability to track every dollar being spent. Don't get me wrong: I bet Bush would, too. The price of freedom (and, I would add, privacy) is constant vigilance, and we must always watch these folks in power.
Maybe you are referring to the possible war tribunals and folks being detained for questioning - but you'll notice that we haven't had any successful attacks on us lately (well, discounting the much-overlooked terrorism in this country from stupid terrorist groups like ELF) - also, some of the folks that the left was screaming so much about have been questioned and released - AND many of these folks aren't even citizens, so where's the problem here? Look, I think that we shouldn't let things get out of hand, and gov't must always be held accountable and questioned, etc., but I think all this talk over Ashcroft "shredding the Constitution" and other such hysteria from (mostly) Democrats is just pure liberal spin. There is clearly a historical precedent that Ashcroft is following, and what he is doing is quite restrained. This is just another stab at trying to make Bush look bad - the Democrats desperately need/want this; that's why they are trying to keep the recession around as long as possible, and that's why they are trying to demonize Ashcroft. Nothing more, nothing less.
The EU is scary - Europe is often held up as an example (by the liberal media and academia) for the U.S. to follow. What short-sighted fellows our liberal friends are. Europe brought us facism and the Nazis. Why should we be so eager to follow in these kinds of footsteps? Already we are hearing of people being lashed out at by the EU for merely speaking out against the EU.
Sounds like 1984 to me - "obedience is freedom" or somesuch. It's giant lumbering soon-to-be-dictatorships like this that America needs to stay as far away as possible from - this includes the U.N. - the EU is the testing ground for many of the U.N.'s plans, IMHO. If the U.N. succeeds in its grand design, any sovereign qualities a country might have will be null and void (ie, no freedom of speech, no right to keep and bear arms, etc.). We are already seeing freedom of speech being stamped out in the EU and I'm sure it will only snowball.
Who benefits from this tracking of money? Besides those in government positions? Oh, sure, the usual spectres will be held up as the reasons: terrorists, drug smugglers, and child porn rings. But, what are the REAL reasons to track money to this degree of accuracy? Hmmm? Yes, EU is marching towards a full-on regime. Hopefully, weasely little bureaucrats in America don't try this here. That "Know Your Customer" crap they tried to pass here a while ago looks like small potatoes compared to this. You see, it's not about those spectres that are always raised - it's about making sure they can collect all the taxes they can, or having the ability to know where all your assets are, and possibly seize them - in other words, to control your life as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm...I hate to nitpick, but isn't HTML just a subset of SGML, which was developed in America? And the world really didn't sit up and notice until NCSA created Mosaic, anyway. Not that Europe should be discounted - there have been many great contributions - Linux is one major recent one.
While I'll agree it's hard to attribute so many concepts to the correct places, we can probably safely say that, in comparison to TCP/IP, HTML/HTTP is pretty trivial stuff...and there is no "web" without TCP/IP.
Yet another hate-America-first'er shooting from the hip, apparently. Thing is, would anyone use a Euro-net? I doubt it...as much as the elitists might hate the fact, America is where it's at, and the masses have decided. This schmoe probably wants to segregate Europe from Hollywood and CNN, etc.
Don't complain...it used to be a lot more difficult in the bad old days. XFree86 used to be lots of separate downloads, too.
Sounds like some folks at the top desperately need to read Peopleware. I thought hoteling was an idea whose time has come and gone...trying to treat knowledge workers like factory workers is really, really stupid. The idea that workers might be a company's biggest asset is a really threatening concept to some companies, apparently, and I think that some of this bizarre behavior is indicative of that.
Also, just because it is easy to admin doesn't mean that it justifies this soulless environment.
Yup. The poster you are replying to needs to read After The Gold Rush to get an idea of what is needed, and why. I'm all for limited gov't myself, but sometimes a tiny bit of regulation is a good thing. Not all engineers do life-threatening things, and they need to be certified. Why is software any different.
I for one am tired of having my resume being compared side-by-side with "self-made" programmers (or worse, johnny-come-latelys) who have very little or spotty experience, but who will probably work for less. Sometimes these people can pull their weight, but nine times out of ten, I end up being dragged down by them if I have to work side-by-side with them. They give ridiculous timelines, drastically underestimate the complexity of some problems, hardcode things that should not be hardcoded, etc., etc.
It's like hiring a recent high school grad to do EE or Chem E and saying "well, ANYONE can learn this...it's easy". Software development is NOT EASY to do efficiently, correctly, with realistic estimates, etc...certification of some kind is not a magic bullet, but it should raise the bar to admission and help keep the bozo quotient down. The internet boom was a mixed blessing - made for plenty of jobs for anyone, including good people. The downside was that so many bad people were in the mix, and I had to work with scores of them, it seems - many with the attitude, "well, I don't need a degree, don't you feel dumb for getting a Comp Sci degree?" The answer is, and still is, no. You see, I still have a job, at least for now, after a two-month hiatus. These folks have to back to burger-flipping or whatever. Or go back to school or go to school for the first time.
The unfortunate thing is that I have to work at an interview or other correspondence to convince PHBs and recruiters and HR folks that what I have matters to them - I've already proven myself in a way, but it's not recognized but by a few elite right now, and it can be very frustrating. The problem is that this isn't just a problem for me; it is damaging to the industry over the long haul.
Hmm. It seems that 7% hardly approaches the 90% of the general population, so that may say something. However, I am a bit concerned with both the measured population and how it may have been asked - the terminology "personal God" may have markedly changed the outcome. For example, Stephen Hawking mentions God several times in his book (title escapes me at the moment), but I'm not sure that he would have answered that survey as having a belief in a "personal God". Also, and more importantly, since it was one subset of scientists, in this age of Political Correctness and the view that some government folks (and not just in schools) hold towards any public display of faith, the very environment of fear that might have created cannot be discounted.
Even accounting for that, I'm surprised to see these numbers so high. I'd still like to see the results from an anonymous, carefully worded survey of a more general set of scientists.
Argh. You stole my thunder. :) I was going to make the same point. Rabid anti-evolutionists will never understand that evolution is NOT a belief system, and they will never understand that it's certainly not some scientific conspiracy - I haven't seen numbers, but I'd wager that the population of scientists approaches the same levels of faith as the general population.
Work for smaller companies or for the software development teams in a larger corp. Smaller companies tend to be MUCH less draconian (typically because you also wear the admin hat; there is no IT department, per se) and it's kind of hard to build a case for killing the lifeblood of a software development team even in big corps - spam blocking, porn blocking, virus blocking, etc., all make sense in the big picture - but just shutting it down? For programmers, that's like tying one arm behind your back and then saying, "okay, get back to work, you! Why aren't you typing faster?!"
I also imagine that the "authorized personnel" in the article will tend to be executives, upper management, their favorite little cute secretaries, etc...in other words, politically-based, not based on any real need.
I'm a lifetime subscriber...since I didn't get any such notice - I assume there is no price hike for the lifers?
1952? Wouldn't that be 50 years?
Uh, well, the map of telecommuting territory also requires a boss and/or company that understands one can manage software projects without physically watching people - sadly, too many managers come from the school of packers, and there are far too few mappers out there...software is not an assembly line.
I have had broadband access for 2.5 years now, and I have yet to have a manager that would allow me to work from home. One manager at the last company (a complete dolt) came just shy of firing someone who said they would be working from home while their house was getting painted...the boss claimed that only hours worked at the office can count for any hours on a timesheet. Another time I was at a client where all the project managers consistently worked from home (laughable - they were all terribly incompetent, incompetency ran rampant at this client like no one's business - if I didn't witness some of the things I saw myself, there's no way I'd believe it if someone else told me it happened at a place they worked) and very rarely, in bad weather, would let their FTE's work from home - but NEVER, EVER their consultants. Needless to say, both of these companies are struggling to just keep their doors open right now, so maybe there is something to old assembly-line type management techniques vs. management that software is best done in - I think Peopleware should be required reading for anyone doing any software management at all.
Depends on where you are building it. On FreeBSD, using the ports, it's not such a big deal, IIRC. Debian may provide a similar ease of building with it's tools.
Q: What do you call someone who speaks one language?
A: American.
Also:
A: Canadian.
A: Chinese.
Applies just as much, but not quite as funny, because they aren't on top of the heap.
Buy anything in America and you get a fist-full of ones.
You should end up with four ones at the most. How is that a fistful? I usually buy everything with cash; I use a money clip and usually carry $100-$300. The scarcity of $2 bills hasn't been a problem for me, ever. Having lots of $1 bills always comes in handy when eating out - just leave the proper amount and go. No waiting for server to break a yuppie food stamp, no waiting for stupid debit card and signing it.
...but I will wager you'll never see empires like the USA or China give up their sovereignty.
Well, I don't care what China ends up doing, but here's to hoping the U.S. never hands over its sovereignty. All will have been for naught, because no world government's Constitution will ever approximate what U.S. citizens enjoy, esp. if that world government grows out of the EU or UN models - it's bound to be an oppressive socialist state that does not recognize full freedom of speech (well, besides things like yelling fire in a crowded theater) and, most importantly, the right to keep and bear arms. George Orwell, call your office.
If you would look at what cliton shredded, it was for his on protection for the most part. Bla.. bla blow job. And for silly reasons such has that.
. ht ml
LOL. Oh, you're killing me here, thanks for the laugh. Are you for real? Are you going to university? Don't believe everything your prof says.
Clinton was THE biggest violator of the Constitution. Here's a very small list:
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe42-19980727-03
There are many others, including executive orders SIGNING OVER AMERICAN LAND to be the property of the UN. Then there's his infamous pardons at the end.Then there are all the allegations about the mysterious deaths of folks who maybe were a little too close to him. That's veering into conspiracy-land, but no other president has had so many ties and suspicions circling them, not even JFK. I mean, at least JFK didn't have allegations of outright TREASON circling him (selling secrets to China) And yet, Clinton apologists continue to support the notion that Clinton's perjury was "to save his family" and "just about sex". To think I voted for the no-good piece of white trash in 1992...in any case, I'm sure years down the road, most of the facts will start to turn up. It's kind of scary that Bush signed something preventing a much-needed investigation into Clinton...very odd, but I suspect it's a matter of the powerful watching out for each other.
How long will it take to fix Mr. "Populer vote means nothing" Bush's...
ROTFLMAO!!!! As for the popular vote, it doesn't mean anything, and it never was meant to. I didn't vote for Bush, I voted Libertarian, so I guess I know how the common man might feel cheated. But folks who actually know the system know the electoral college is there so that New York and California aren't the only places where candidates have to go on the campaign trail, and "feelings" on the election matter not at all - facts do. And don't talk of a "stolen election" - the closest thing that can be shown of any rigging was that black REPUBLICAN voters may have been disenfranchised. Hmmmm...it's almost funny (if so many people didn't actually believe it) that Democrats and NAACP-types are claiming that Bush stole the election - how the hell could they do that, when the counties that Gore wanted to recount were Democrat-controlled?
As for "bashing gay and atheists" I haven't seen that, and even if I had, how is "bashing" shredding any Constitution? That's just free speech, unpopular as it may be. Just because someone disagrees with a certain worldview, doesn't mean that person is a homophobe (whatever that word means) or radical Christian. Why is that a person's personal views only matter if they are on the right? If they are on the left, it's never called into question.
Why do liberals feel they can jam THEIR religions/political/economical views down the populace's throat any more than someone on the right? I know, when a conservative tries to do the same, it's hate speech, I forgot. And what economical view is Ashcroft "jamming down" the throat of a country that has strong roots in capitalism anyway? If you want something else (communism, socialism), move somewhere else. Anything Bush's administration is pushing for dovetails quite nicely with what a lot of Americans want, and also with a strong TRADITION of all three: religion/political/economical...did you know that over 80% of Americans claim they are Christian? Where's the problem in having officials who are openly Christian, too? You obviously sympathize with gays; why do you want Christians to be "closeted" any more than you would want gays to be closeted? Why do liberals always want their politics to reflect some perfect utopia in their own mind, rather than reality?
For the record, I am AGNOSTIC, so I don't really care what religious beliefs people in power hold as long as I am not forced to do anything I don't want. They can believe in faeries for all I care. Separation of church and state was only there to prevent something akin to Inquisition, and that's not too bloody likely. People are just WAY too touchy when someone like Ashcroft says he's a conservative Christian, like he's got horns or something. If you grab twenty folks from U.S completey randomly, you're bound to come up with at least one or two people who agree with Ashcroft for the most part.
There are some things done that I have some concern about when it comes to Ashcroft*, but believe me, I feel much more comfortable having him in office after Reno. Good grief, she was in no way even qualified for the job, and the Dems were grilling Ashcroft during Senate hearings like he was the next Hitler, and claiming they were concerned about his personal views, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, Reno should be investigated for her "work" during Hitlery and Bill's reign.
*And military tribunals for non-citizens are NOT one of my concerns. There is plenty of precent for this. My concerns with Ashcroft are kind of nebulous right now, and I can't really name any one thing he's done that I can put my finger on and say, "Now that's just dictatorship in disguise." But I'm watching him. I'm a tad nervous.
You said it. Do you know that the EPA actually has ARMED agents now? WTF does the EPA need armed agents for? I'd question any government agent at ALL being armed, because of (I think) the 10th Amendment, which basically says, any rights not specifically granted to the government, the government does not have. The right to keep and bear arms is without a doubt granted to individual citizens, but I'm not so sure about Random J. Agency having them.
And you are correct, the executive order is an abhorrent thing - Clinton was one of the biggest abusers. He and Hitlery ruled like a pair of aristocrats, or worse, despots, that considered themselves completely above the law. How people can STILL continue to sing their praises is beyond me. Of course, the same people who sing their praises are screaming about Ashcroft "shredding the Constitution". What a joke - they better look to their hero to see who has shredded the Constitution.
Ugh. That's crazy. What the world doesn't need is a world government. The EU is *already* starting to show signs of oppressive behavior, and they don't have the monopoly that a world government would have.
Britain has the right idea trying to keep their head out of that noose. And the U.S. would be crazy to enter into any kind of EU or world government relationship - in fact, we should withdraw from the UN as soon as possible. The UN is an absolute farce, and lately has been nothing but a podium for every teapot dictator on the planet with a beef with the "imperialist" U.S.
Personally, I think we should adopt a policy of "benign neglect" when it comes to other countries. George Washington, I believe, was one of the founding fathers who warned against entanglements with other countries. "Benign neglect" would mean just that - no aid, unless it was privately raised and distributed (Red Cross), no propping up of governments we like to get/keep oil flowing - no engaging in war, unless it was a direct attack (Pearl Harbor, WTC/Pentagon attacks, for example), regardless of the injustices that are going on.
Not only would this save us tons of money, it would also prompt us to explore alternative sources of energy, which would result in no other country being able to control our industries. It would also, and this is the most important: it would give all the dumbasses out there no more ammo to use against us...for example, every stupid little Islamic paper blames US for an economic embargo on Iraq that could easily be lifted.
A world government would be terrible in taxes, too: the UN has already displayed an interest in being able to tax individuals within countries. This means that you would not only be paying local, state, federal, social security, and medicare taxes, you'd also be paying UN taxes.
And any rights you have as a citizen under the Constitution of the United States - well, you can just throw them out the window. All this talk about Ashcroft "shredding the Constitution" will be laughable compared to what a world government will do to the Constitution. There are very good reasons for having sovereign nations.
I suggest you adopt a "wait-and-see" attitude when it comes to the EU and whether we have any business being part of it. I suspect time will prove me right - we may even end up fighting to liberate countries from the EU at some future point. Whenever someone suggest we need to be more like Europe, I always chuckle and go over in my head just how great Europe was that someone like Hitler could nearly run the whole affair if it wasn't for us. Europe also produced Napoleon and Mussolini...I wouldn't be so quick to step in the same steps as Europe, and I can understand why Britain wants to hold back, too.
Create a global constitution, get most of the people (not politicians) to sign off on it, and we should have a world where human rights are better in all countries, pollution is minimized , and the government is still slave to the people (unlike the UN)
Speaking for paranoid types like me, the UN is aiming to make sure to IGNORE all the good sense you displayed above - they view our Second Amendment as a human rights issue - as a strike AGAINST human rights. Pretty strange, since the Second Amendment should really be the First Amendment, since it's arguably one of the most important key to remaining free. Apparently the EU is already displaying the same kind of sentiment - they are coming down on people who happened to speak out on the EU - freedom of speech is okay in the EU, as long as you don't criticize the EU, apparently.
Personally, I can think of nothing worse than one world government - even if it is cast in the style that the U.S. was...because governments tend to attract little people with big plans for you and me...and they rarely involve freedom for the little guy. If there would be no place to flee oppressive governments, what would individuals and corporations that are being treated unkindly do? The only recourse would be a violent revolution. Not good. And if you think Islam has radical factions NOW, wait until they actually WOULD have to live under the rule of the "infidel". And radical Christians even here would view a New World Order (which a one world government would be to them) as a sign of the impending Apocalypse. They probably wouldn't hijack planes and try to kill innocent civilians like cavemen savages who have barely discovered fire and think we are living in the 12th century (al-Qaeda), but I doubt their behavior would be something we want, either.
I'm not ruling it out, but I'm also not going to agree that there is a 50/50 chance of this...things of this magnitude just aren't as easily done by lone inventors and geniuses anymore - the financial requirements alone are probably the most prohibitive. Maybe a 1% chance, if I were a betting man. Yes, there are plenty of examples of self-taught people unleashing their creative powers in ways that drastically altered the course of things, but those examples are hard to come by these days...this is why companies like AT&T threw money at a prof of mine who chose his specialization in Genetic Algorithms - they had/have an intractable problem they wanted him to unleash his specialization on. I'm sure they also funded other such profs. I'm sure that companies that can turn a profit from breakthroughs ARE betting on such things, and so they think their best bet is on the folks with degrees.
One modern day argument in your favor, BTW, is Dean Kamen - but he at least started university. He has made outstanding achievements, obviously, and so shows that it can be done, but for every one of him, there are probably dozens or more of teams of degreed folks cranking on things...one advantage someone like him does have is that he can stop and turn on a dime - he only has to convince himself of some new course of action.
I agree that there is plenty of problems with institutions, and they can tend to get into ruts of doctrine - but if someone comes up with something new, and it can be properly peer-reviewed, even the oldest and stodgiest of profs/researchers cannot reject it...the curious people you describe often end up with degrees - because the people they want to be in contact with usually run in university circles. Some end up in R&D, others don't...but the curious/intelligent types continue to learn all their lives. My father and my grandfather were both examples of people who had no degrees, and yet continued/continue to learn their whole lives, both learned many different skills (I remember visiting my grandfather once in the mid 80's, and he had a C-64, and had taught himself assembler...once in the early 90's, when I visited him, he was doing CAD work - he did this kind of thing until he passed, and it wasn't just confined to computers by any extent) - and often inspired the inner geek/scientist/mechanic/carpenter/what-have-you in those around them. I hope that my degree never makes me lose sight of that fact, and that I never become so arrogant as to ignore valid ideas from folks like my father and grandfather.
Also, as I said before, for the average schmoe chug-n-plug type of jobs, degrees can be overrated, esp. after a number of years of experience, and esp. in non-technical work.
P.S. When's the last time you read something published in journals the likes of JAMA that were non-degreed? Like it or not, we're not living in the Industrialized Age anymore...
There is less evidence to suggest that "educated" people do better jobs than "uneducated" people - than there is that "colored" people do poorer that "whites."
Oops, you didn't set the "less than" low enough. There is PLENTY of evidence that, for example, blacks are doing worse than whites - 60% of black fourth-graders can't read. I don't know what the white stat is, but it certainly isn't 60%. In other words, this comparison doesn't help your argument.
I agree that many non-classically trained folks have done great things...but classically trained (ie, university training) people have gone much, much further in the realm of advancements during the past century - of that there is little doubt. Think about it: would you rather, as a large government agency, throw your money for research for cancer at people with PhDs or people who were self-taught? When was the last time a squeeze of more memory on a HD, or more layers on DVD, etc. was done by a non-degreed person or team?
As for the humdrum daily grind of the business world, yes, there are more examples there of successes of non-degreed folks - but that requires a go-to type of attitude, and glad-handing the right people, etc...in other words, mostly people skills and the right breeding, for the most part (that's where the term "management hair" comes from)...typical primate behavior. And very little of that can be obtained via earning a university degree. In that arena, I couldn't agree more with you...but in the realm of the highly skilled, I think your argument falls apart.
In any case, I'll answer the question at face value:
Nothing against you personally, but I hope that there is NOT such a "fast track". It sounds like you jumped into the workforce during boom time to make a fast buck. No problem with that, but many of us busted our balls and bank accounts taking the long journey to a BSCS, and the whole idea of someone snaking their way around it is, well, pretty insulting. I've worked with plenty of very good and very bad programmers, and most of the very good had a BS in something - usually engineering of some type or CS. I have yet to work with someone I consider very good who does not have any degree at all. There were plenty of average hackers who were recent high school grads, but no one outstanding.
One of these high school grads, just before I was moved to another project, was assigned as PM of a project!!! Over several people who had MANY more years of experience + BSCS. Well, I'm glad I went to another project, believe me. It's a long and silly story about stupid people in management having no respect for academic folks, and just loving yes-men and brown-nosers instead of people who give honest and useful criticism, but the result was this: the project failed. Hit the pavement hard. And it was no surprise to anyone but the dumbass in management who made the decision to have this guy be PM. The resentment of those on the team for having this snake, who had done little to prove himself either in the workplace(besides buddying up to the boss) or academia, placed in charge of their project was inexcusable - people on that project quit left and right, and by the time I got back from the client I was on, every last one of them was gone. They didn't really seem to ever acknowledge their mistake to anyone in an open forum, but they did end up firing the guy because he started asking for too much money.
Long story short: get your degree. You will be held in higher esteem for it. As for those trade schools, they have their place, but they aren't very well respected, IMHO. I've actually seen managers chuckle softly when reading those on resumes, in fact, and then chucking them in the trash...and that's when it was supposedly so hard to find developers.
Last: What does the amount of civil rights organizations have to do with this? Are there really more of such organizations in the US (as compared to the EU)? Please give me some facts. And then think about why this could be....maybe they're simply needed more in the US?
Can't speak for the US/Europe numbers in civil rights organizations, but the overwhelming amount of "civil rights" groups we have now seem more interested in pushing radical agendas and/or extorting money from corporations, since they've largely achieved their original goals - now they are just industries, for the most part. And with all the PC nonsense flying about, it's almost impossible to shine the light of truth on these folks without getting accused of "hate speech".
The ACLU is so damned concerned about someone maybe mentioning God in public schools, for example, and I don't remember a PEEP from them when the Know Your Customer legislation was on the table. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition seems to be landing his buddies lots of cash money, but doing little about, say, getting vouchers for inner-city kids to be able to have selection for schools. NOW bent over and grabbed their ankles for Bill Clinton when he was accused of rape - even though it would seem he would represent all they should denounce, at least on an individual level. The NAACP even claimed Bill Clinton was an "alpha male" and should enjoy the spoils of such. Once again, selling themselves out for the support his administration gave them. Yes, these are the organizations that claim to look out for the little guy. When they are not doing things like the above, they are demanding special treatment that flies in the face of equality. Many do it while stuffing their own pockets full of money and still maintaining tax exempt status. I wouldn't count on too much of an outcry from any of these guys over an RF-enabled currency here.
The USA, despite its poor track record under the current administration, is the only country I would trust not to invade our lives through the currency we use.
And what track record is that? I must have missed the memo. IIRC, the "Know Your Customer" legislation was something that was almost slipped in under the radar during the Clinton administration. Clinton also continued to escalate the War on Some Drugs spending like never before. All these machinations were set in motion long before his tenure, but his administration didn't do much to stop them, either. Oh yeah, then there's the Clipper chip. I bet ol' Bill would have lo-o-o-ved the ability to track every dollar being spent. Don't get me wrong: I bet Bush would, too. The price of freedom (and, I would add, privacy) is constant vigilance, and we must always watch these folks in power.
Maybe you are referring to the possible war tribunals and folks being detained for questioning - but you'll notice that we haven't had any successful attacks on us lately (well, discounting the much-overlooked terrorism in this country from stupid terrorist groups like ELF) - also, some of the folks that the left was screaming so much about have been questioned and released - AND many of these folks aren't even citizens, so where's the problem here? Look, I think that we shouldn't let things get out of hand, and gov't must always be held accountable and questioned, etc., but I think all this talk over Ashcroft "shredding the Constitution" and other such hysteria from (mostly) Democrats is just pure liberal spin. There is clearly a historical precedent that Ashcroft is following, and what he is doing is quite restrained. This is just another stab at trying to make Bush look bad - the Democrats desperately need/want this; that's why they are trying to keep the recession around as long as possible, and that's why they are trying to demonize Ashcroft. Nothing more, nothing less.
The EU is scary - Europe is often held up as an example (by the liberal media and academia) for the U.S. to follow. What short-sighted fellows our liberal friends are. Europe brought us facism and the Nazis. Why should we be so eager to follow in these kinds of footsteps? Already we are hearing of people being lashed out at by the EU for merely speaking out against the EU.
Sounds like 1984 to me - "obedience is freedom" or somesuch. It's giant lumbering soon-to-be-dictatorships like this that America needs to stay as far away as possible from - this includes the U.N. - the EU is the testing ground for many of the U.N.'s plans, IMHO. If the U.N. succeeds in its grand design, any sovereign qualities a country might have will be null and void (ie, no freedom of speech, no right to keep and bear arms, etc.). We are already seeing freedom of speech being stamped out in the EU and I'm sure it will only snowball.
Who benefits from this tracking of money? Besides those in government positions? Oh, sure, the usual spectres will be held up as the reasons: terrorists, drug smugglers, and child porn rings. But, what are the REAL reasons to track money to this degree of accuracy? Hmmm? Yes, EU is marching towards a full-on regime. Hopefully, weasely little bureaucrats in America don't try this here. That "Know Your Customer" crap they tried to pass here a while ago looks like small potatoes compared to this. You see, it's not about those spectres that are always raised - it's about making sure they can collect all the taxes they can, or having the ability to know where all your assets are, and possibly seize them - in other words, to control your life as much as possible.