ISCA is still up and running, though I don't think it's being technically hosted by the U of I computer association anymore. Not too much has changed, otherwise...
FTA:
They migrate quickly from habitat to habitat. A sign that a CIO is of the nocens executor species is a pattern of rapid job transitions on his résumé This happens a LOT. I'm not sure why, but these people settle in, take on a few token projects (never finishing, or else FUBAR'ing them), then leave just as they're being "exposed." I won't name names.
FTA:
Young and old flee the CIO's flock. Unusually high levels of staff turnover in the IT department after the new CIO has joined... Ya think? Some departments empty out like rich people leaving the Titanic once you bring in someone new, which is usually a bad sign. A good, sensible leader will often spend the first part of his/her tenure just watching and learning, before making any huge changes (unless they're hatchet men, in which case I'll be the one wearing a dress floating off in the lifeboat)
"Cruft" wasn't my term; I incorporated it in my post to compare the rendering behavior of the two browsers in question.
Perhaps I have an underdeveloped sense of humor, but I thought referring to text-heavy sites as being "dull" would be rather droll, considering I was posting on slashdot.
Sorry if I missed the subtlety of your original post.
Programmer Ethics
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are at least a few different angles here, and I suggest that management (bad management, at least) is largely to blame for a special, invisible, type of ethics violation in the IT world.
Let me begin by reviewing three modalities of ethical behavior:
1) How the IT worker functions vis-a-vis their co-workers: the usual stuff--office politics, gossip, backstabbing, etc. and has been well-covered elsewhere.
2) How the "visible" IT worker functions in relation to his/her job: Email snoops, BOFHs, yeah, yeah, we get it.
3) Invisible work: Poor management doesn't understand the value of patching, refactoring, debugging, commenting--and because of this forces the worker to compromise their ethics. These operations are often invisible to the unwashed masses.
The third category is hard for management to grasp. They don't understand what it means to cross the line from "useful hack" to "pure garbage."
Code like this:
try (something) { // hey, it works, let's get busy! } catch (exception) { // do nothing, rotsa ruck, suckers! }
...should be considered a special type of ethics violation (there are probably better examples--but this one should suffice).
Lots of programmers make evil shortcuts or write halfass algorithms, not (always) because they're lazy or incompetent, but because they're implicitly asked to, by managers and product teams who don't understand. Where is the ethical violation in an empty 'catch' block? Could it be the result of:
A) Management who lied about the man-hours required to complete a project, B) Product teams who didn't take the time to gather requirements properly, or C) Decision-makers who don't consider programmer input or advice.
The programmer is often forced to make an ethical decision: what is the right thing to do when the boss says "STFU about revising your code and push it into production?" Usually the programmer will just throw whatever they have ready, knowing that they're not putting their best work forward.
Who suffers? The programmer who feels they're forced to make an evil choice, the enduser who pays for shoddy product, the next person who looks at your code, etc.
Sometimes this choice is validated based on expediency, sometimes, it does nothing but let the manager check a milestone off in their excel spreadsheet.
Lynx really does have a "several screens of cruft" problem--agreed. Part of this is due in part, I believe, to the fact that a lot of the "tables for layout" sites really suffer when Lynx just plops down text in the order it's received. It's not a huge hassle, but it can be a minor annoyance.
w3m understands tables, which seems to help the layout a lot. It isn't perfect, but you do avoid a lot of the "long page" issues you see in Lynx.
Some websites do different things with hyperlinks and navigation buttons. In Yahoo! mail (which has traditionally been pretty Lynx-friendly) it's impossible to "send" a message IIRC because Lynx renders the send button as a non-clickable image.
Since w3m incorporates images pretty well, I've found this problem (and several other ones related to graphics) goes away.
The main weaknesses still seem to be with javascript navigation (or window:open stuff for hyperlinks that open in a new window). Design-savvy individuals will correctly argue that the layout, being basically decimated and/or reinterpreted without CSS can really screw up the appearance and functionality of certain websites. AJAX-driven content and other javascript-dependent features are probably going to be severely limited.
Much of this really depends on your browsing habits, I am sure. If you're looking for rather dull, text-heavy (with occassional images) material most of the day, you really don't need 500MB of RAM dedicated to your web browser! On the other hand, a lot of people would be driven crazy by Lynx or w3m.
Yes, exactly. TFA actually includes a similar example (btw, who knows what kind of kickback scheme is behind this, but you can bet there is one). You throw in the fact that calls home with usage/tracking data, and you know what? We're technically talking about something very similar to adware.
Of course, most joe-sixpack people don't care. This suggests that there's some convergence of advertising and application functionality in our future (see also: Google Apps)
You get your emacs keybindings, seamless integration with GNU pico for textarea typing, and images (you'll need w3m-img, available in your local repository).
No javascript, no flash...just pure bliss. It's like lynx, only on steroids. It's like the web is pure and clean again.
Hunter-gatherers (still present today in various locations around the world, btw) spend approximately 1/3 of their day looking for food--just surviving.
Modern office workers (still present today in various locations around the world) spend approximately 1/3 of their day working so they can pay for their food--just surviving.
In all seriousness, this move seems like a wise one, especially when they enumerate the cost savings in licenses, etc. I will in fact print this out and bring it in to my MS-fanboi boss tomorrow, hoping to continue to build my case for migrating. Why is it that the Europeans embrace Linux so readily, while here in git'er'dun land it's so often viewed like the plague?
(ob. gentoo joke) Plus, they'll be more effective in their jobs if they're not sitting around, waiting for their packages to compile and dependencies to resolve./still got nuthin
So past opening and closing doors, keyboards it is. Or for those unskilled in the expressive art of the command-line, a mouse or function buttons. Hear hear! I'm still hoping in my lifetime I'll get to enjoy the inevitable outrageous media hype over the NEW TYPE OF INTERFACE, one that REPLACES THE PRIMITIVE GUI with WORDS THAT YOU TYPE INTO THE SCREEN. This one will use SOPHISTICATED text parsing and concepts derived from ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!!
I gotta confess--I'm a little dismayed this code snippet (how many of those do you see around here lately?) got modded down--as a troll, no less! This (working) example uses actual mkdir.c source code, and it was with great care that I crafted the "novelty" portion. Its reference to a popular frist prost style of comment was actually intended to be a parody--a puckish satire--of the whole genre.
Perhaps the point of the joke was too subtle. TFA made it sound like there were actually malicious individuals out there intent on rooting your box and replacing mkdir with an oddly quirky and ridiculously hobbled version--to what end, nobody knows. The example above was intended to illustrate the idiocy of the notion, and thus derail the entire fools' errand that comprises the paranoid schizophrenic who fears miniscule modifications to mkdir.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, a fellow (ex-) ISCA-er? Cool!
ISCA is still up and running, though I don't think it's being technically hosted by the U of I computer association anymore. Not too much has changed, otherwise...
Why are programmers non-productive?
Because their time is wasted in meetings.
Why are programmers rebellious?
Because the management interferes too much.
Why are the programmers resigning one by one?
Because they are burnt out.
Having worked for poor management, they no longer value their jobs.
FTA: Young and old flee the CIO's flock. Unusually high levels of staff turnover in the IT department after the new CIO has joined... Ya think? Some departments empty out like rich people leaving the Titanic once you bring in someone new, which is usually a bad sign. A good, sensible leader will often spend the first part of his/her tenure just watching and learning, before making any huge changes (unless they're hatchet men, in which case I'll be the one wearing a dress floating off in the lifeboat)
Just watch out for the Ground Roving Unit Network Terminators (GRUNTs)
"Cruft" wasn't my term; I incorporated it in my post to compare the rendering behavior of the two browsers in question.
Perhaps I have an underdeveloped sense of humor, but I thought referring to text-heavy sites as being "dull" would be rather
droll, considering I was posting on slashdot.
Sorry if I missed the subtlety of your original post.
Let me begin by reviewing three modalities of ethical behavior:
1) How the IT worker functions vis-a-vis their co-workers: the usual stuff--office politics, gossip, backstabbing, etc. and has been well-covered elsewhere.
2) How the "visible" IT worker functions in relation to his/her job: Email snoops, BOFHs, yeah, yeah, we get it.
3) Invisible work: Poor management doesn't understand the value of patching, refactoring, debugging, commenting--and because of this forces the worker to compromise their ethics. These operations are often invisible to the unwashed masses.
The third category is hard for management to grasp. They don't understand what it means to cross the line from "useful hack" to "pure garbage."
Code like this: ...should be considered a special type of ethics violation (there are probably better examples--but this one should suffice).
Lots of programmers make evil shortcuts or write halfass algorithms, not (always) because they're lazy or incompetent, but because they're implicitly asked to, by managers and product teams who don't understand. Where is the ethical violation in an empty 'catch' block? Could it be the result of:
A) Management who lied about the man-hours required to complete a project,
B) Product teams who didn't take the time to gather requirements properly, or
C) Decision-makers who don't consider programmer input or advice.
The programmer is often forced to make an ethical decision: what is the right thing to do when the boss says "STFU about revising your code and push it into production?" Usually the programmer will just throw whatever they have ready, knowing that they're not putting their best work forward.
Who suffers? The programmer who feels they're forced to make an evil choice, the enduser who pays for shoddy product, the next person who looks at your code, etc.
Sometimes this choice is validated based on expediency, sometimes, it does nothing but let the manager check a milestone off in their excel spreadsheet.
Lynx really does have a "several screens of cruft" problem--agreed. Part of this is due in part, I believe, to the fact that a lot of the "tables
for layout" sites really suffer when Lynx just plops down text in the order it's received. It's not a huge hassle, but it can be a minor annoyance.
w3m understands tables, which seems to help the layout a lot. It isn't perfect, but you do avoid a lot of the "long page" issues you see in Lynx.
Some websites do different things with hyperlinks and navigation buttons. In Yahoo! mail (which has traditionally been pretty Lynx-friendly) it's
impossible to "send" a message IIRC because Lynx renders the send button as a non-clickable image.
Since w3m incorporates images pretty well, I've found this problem (and several other ones related to graphics) goes away.
The main weaknesses still seem to be with javascript navigation (or window:open stuff for hyperlinks that open in a new window). Design-savvy
individuals will correctly argue that the layout, being basically decimated and/or reinterpreted without CSS can really screw up the appearance and
functionality of certain websites. AJAX-driven content and other javascript-dependent features are probably going to be severely limited.
Much of this really depends on your browsing habits, I am sure. If you're looking for rather dull, text-heavy (with occassional images) material
most of the day, you really don't need 500MB of RAM dedicated to your web browser! On the other hand, a lot of people would be driven crazy by Lynx
or w3m.
Well, there are joes sixpack, and then there are joes sixpack.
Anyone who *really* knows what they're doing is going to be using LaTeX.
Yes, exactly. TFA actually includes a similar example (btw, who knows what kind of kickback scheme is behind this,
but you can bet there is one). You throw in the fact that calls home with usage/tracking data, and you know what?
We're technically talking about something very similar to adware.
Of course, most joe-sixpack people don't care. This suggests that there's some convergence of advertising and
application functionality in our future (see also: Google Apps)
This w3m is pretty cool.
You get your emacs keybindings, seamless integration with GNU pico for textarea typing, and images (you'll need w3m-img, available in your local repository).
No javascript, no flash...just pure bliss.
It's like lynx, only on steroids. It's like the web is pure and clean again.
That does it, I'm switching to w3m
(returns ten minutes later)
Ahh...how relaxing...
Hunter-gatherers (still present today in various locations around the world, btw) spend approximately 1/3 of their day looking for food--just surviving.
Modern office workers (still present today in various locations around the world) spend approximately 1/3 of their day working so they can pay for their food--just surviving.
Agreed--Did Andy Rooney ghost write this, or what?
Hear hear, I've had two yahoo! accounts (one spam, one personal) since 1997 or so--and if this goes through, they're both going bye-bye.
/got nuthin
/still got nuthin
In all seriousness, this move seems like a wise one, especially when they enumerate the cost savings in licenses, etc. I will in fact print this out and bring it in to my MS-fanboi boss tomorrow, hoping to continue to build my case for migrating. Why is it that the Europeans embrace Linux so readily, while here in git'er'dun land it's so often viewed like the plague?
(ob. gentoo joke) Plus, they'll be more effective in their jobs if they're not sitting around, waiting for their packages to compile and dependencies to resolve.
Nice one.
When I first glanced at the headline I thought it said
Geologists May Be Softer Around The Middle Than Previously Thought
I may have to harangue some of the boys down the hall on this one...
That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
Anyone have one of these r2d2 voice-activated r2d2 robots yet?
More importantly, has anyone ever hacked one?
Sample ad copy:
Want to remove a file? Just type
rm [filename]
Want to list the files in your directory? Try
ls
Want help? Just ask for it!
etc.
This is what I thought too. This smacks of desperation, almost Corel-ish.
Maybe this will be a good move for IBM shops that are already neck-deep in that vendor, but I can't see this as anything more than a symbolic move.
Symbolic of what, now that's open to discussion.
Agreed--I'd subscribe to your newsletter. Java is a major scourge of the industry.
Our apologies
The IBM developerWorks Web site is currently under maintenance.
Please try again later.
Thanks for the validation. Next time I'll do a petrified natalie portman with hot grits.
bless() you...whoever you are.
I gotta confess--I'm a little dismayed this code snippet (how many of those do you see around here lately?) got modded down--as a troll, no less! This (working) example uses actual mkdir.c source code, and it was with great care that I crafted the "novelty" portion. Its reference to a popular frist prost style of comment was actually intended to be a parody--a puckish satire--of the whole genre.
Perhaps the point of the joke was too subtle. TFA made it sound like there were actually malicious individuals out there intent on rooting your box and replacing mkdir with an oddly quirky and ridiculously hobbled version--to what end, nobody knows. The example above was intended to illustrate the idiocy of the notion, and thus derail the entire fools' errand that comprises the paranoid schizophrenic who fears miniscule modifications to mkdir.
1 #include <stdio.h> /* Parse any options */
2 #include <stdlib.h>
3 extern int mkdir_main(int argc, char **argv)
4 {
5 int i = FALSE;
6
7 argc--;
8 argv++;
9
10
11 while (argc > 0 && **argv == '-') {
12 if ((*argv[0] >= 48) && (*argv[0] <=57))
13 {
14 printf("PWN3D N00B!!!111\n\n--Ron Paul 08");
15 return 1;
16
17 }
18
19 while (i == FALSE && *++(*argv)) {
20 switch (**argv) {