Well, according to the last BLS stats I saw, IT and programming salaries were about inline with other engineering degrees. Which is to say: a little less than doctors and lawyers, but a more than most every other non-management worker.
This is "overall", so it includes highly experienced and newb workers.
There aren't stats like that for "business"people. That's not one category of career. I imagine you see wild variation there; you can't really compare a "general" degree like business to a focused-career education.
If you regularly work more than 40 hours, you are incompetent. A job which demands you to work "extra" except in cases of rare emergency is a job anyone with any competence will leave.
Blue collar jobs are jobs anyone off the street could do with a little training.
If you think the guys mowing the grass outside could come into your job and manage your SAN or write a scalable AJAX web app, then you must have the easiest IT job in the world, buddy.
We make two to four times as much money as the average American. That's enough to ensure that IT remains a respected and desirable career.
The brief bubble period where we made millions in fake stock options was an anomaly. It was not "normal." Our careers were never really glorious, but they will remain prestigious, like those of scientists, engineers, and other skilled, well-paid professionals.
Re:A Still More Glorious Dawn (of some sort)
on
Carl Sagan Sings
·
· Score: 1
Since the US finally has a president who is talking about getting rid of all nuclear arms, even our own, I think there may just be a galaxy rise in our future:-)
You are correct that having the programmer specify every little detail and do extra conversions manually can potentially reduce bugs, but that comes at the expense of code re-use and development time. That's called a trade-off.
Less code re-use also means more code... which can mean more bugs, obviously.
Personally, I would much prefer a little extra testing and a lot less development time to putting up with the tedium of Java. The dynamic languages are just recently surging in popularity, so we'll see which wins out in the long run.
I don't know if a list like this is being maintained for Ruby, but where I work, most of our internal business web apps, and some of our external apps, are done in ruby. Metasploit, a major app I and many others rely on for security testing, is written entirely in ruby. The folks at Engine Yard (http://www.engineyard.com/) also do serious web app hosting entirely in jruby.
To be fair, you must concede that while the static languages catch some errors at compile time which might not be caught until runtime (or ideally, QA) with a dynamic/duck language, the static languages also "catch" a great deal of non-errors which the programmer is forced to deal with even though they never would have caused problems at run-time, while having the side-effect of reducing code re-use.
Having to fuss with every little inconsequential detail has an advantage as far as testing goes, but it does come with a great cost as well. Some would argue that dynamic/duck + extra testing has the same effect with less cost than static + less testing.
Ruby and Python have only been "mainstream" for a few years, while static languages have been around since the ancient days. We have yet to see how high they can rise, but I'm betting they'll go pretty far--especially considering the fact that QA teams are far less expensive to business than programmers are.
entertainment hours per dollar
on
Why Games Cost $60
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Online multiplayer games are probably the best value in entertainment. Example: The Orange Box was $50, and contained four games. Just one of those games, TF2, has given me over 500 hours of entertainment in the past two years. Compare that $50/500hr expense to a $10 2hr movie, and you can see that almost any price could be "justified" for certain games. $60 is likely selected because it's about as much as many people can drop on an impulse purchase for a purely luxury item.
Bad programmers can write "unwieldy" code in any language. High-level, dynamic, duck-typed languages are not unique in this respect.
The difference is, the app is up and running, ready to ship with the duck-typed languages, whereas people using lower level static languages are still writing converters and reconverters which don't add anything to the actual functionality of the app.
(For the uninitiated, this is one of the reasons Ruby and Python programmers can deliver code in a tiny fraction of the time it takes Java or C# programmers.)
This solution is egress filtering: stop all traffic going out to the internet from desktop computers. Then provide a proxy server (HTTP and SOCKS) users can use to get what they need on the net. The proxy server must be a filtering server--the sort that keeps a list of known malware sites and botnet controllers, so that it can automatically block them.
With this in place, users will still be able to get what they need from the net, but 99% of bots will be stopped.
Oh boo hoo! And what if users TALK about your site using their vocal cords?? Site owners must have some technology for disabling users' vocal chords while accessing their sites.
Not really. Having people in an off-world biosphere has benefits other than scientific: like working toward ensuring the species survives a catastrophe on Earth.
You are defending a stupid, senseless, unjust, unliberalized law. Banning all films, games, novels, drawings, etc. which are set in Nazi Germany does not protect dignity. Censoring "hate" speech or speech intended to incite violence may be an acceptable trade off for "dignity" (whatever that means), but that is NOT what is happening here. Your government is denying your right to any novel, game, or film set at that point in history, regardless of whether it is intended to promote the Nazi party or incite violence. This law very much serves aid in the denial of history, as it makes much discussion of history illegal.
That takes away your own dignity. Your government would dignify you by protecting your rights, not taking them away.
False dichotomy. You are simply wrong when you say anything but herd immunity is useless. The people who don't die of AIDS thanks to this vaccine would very much disagree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
You can say you believe that, but you should have some data (not selection bias) to have any confidence at all in your statement.
Well, according to the last BLS stats I saw, IT and programming salaries were about inline with other engineering degrees. Which is to say: a little less than doctors and lawyers, but a more than most every other non-management worker.
This is "overall", so it includes highly experienced and newb workers.
There aren't stats like that for "business"people. That's not one category of career. I imagine you see wild variation there; you can't really compare a "general" degree like business to a focused-career education.
Yes, both you and the other Firewire user are quite upset about this, I'm sure.
How can & symbols be used to do XSS?
Last I checked, computer science grads were fighting with chemical engineering grads for the highest starting salary spot among all 4-year degrees.
If you regularly work more than 40 hours, you are incompetent. A job which demands you to work "extra" except in cases of rare emergency is a job anyone with any competence will leave.
Blue collar jobs are jobs anyone off the street could do with a little training.
If you think the guys mowing the grass outside could come into your job and manage your SAN or write a scalable AJAX web app, then you must have the easiest IT job in the world, buddy.
Ain't no way IT is or will be blue-collar.
We make two to four times as much money as the average American. That's enough to ensure that IT remains a respected and desirable career.
The brief bubble period where we made millions in fake stock options was an anomaly. It was not "normal." Our careers were never really glorious, but they will remain prestigious, like those of scientists, engineers, and other skilled, well-paid professionals.
Since the US finally has a president who is talking about getting rid of all nuclear arms, even our own, I think there may just be a galaxy rise in our future :-)
If you think ruby was "mainstream" 10 years ago, you're looking at a different history than I am.
It's pretty clear you don't understand what duck typing is. Go look it up and get back to us.
You are correct that having the programmer specify every little detail and do extra conversions manually can potentially reduce bugs, but that comes at the expense of code re-use and development time. That's called a trade-off.
Less code re-use also means more code... which can mean more bugs, obviously.
Personally, I would much prefer a little extra testing and a lot less development time to putting up with the tedium of Java. The dynamic languages are just recently surging in popularity, so we'll see which wins out in the long run.
I realize you're joking, but here's a list of organizations that make serious use of Python:
http://wiki.python.org/moin/OrganizationsUsingPython
I don't know if a list like this is being maintained for Ruby, but where I work, most of our internal business web apps, and some of our external apps, are done in ruby. Metasploit, a major app I and many others rely on for security testing, is written entirely in ruby. The folks at Engine Yard (http://www.engineyard.com/) also do serious web app hosting entirely in jruby.
To be fair, you must concede that while the static languages catch some errors at compile time which might not be caught until runtime (or ideally, QA) with a dynamic/duck language, the static languages also "catch" a great deal of non-errors which the programmer is forced to deal with even though they never would have caused problems at run-time, while having the side-effect of reducing code re-use.
Having to fuss with every little inconsequential detail has an advantage as far as testing goes, but it does come with a great cost as well. Some would argue that dynamic/duck + extra testing has the same effect with less cost than static + less testing.
Ruby and Python have only been "mainstream" for a few years, while static languages have been around since the ancient days. We have yet to see how high they can rise, but I'm betting they'll go pretty far--especially considering the fact that QA teams are far less expensive to business than programmers are.
Online multiplayer games are probably the best value in entertainment. Example: The Orange Box was $50, and contained four games. Just one of those games, TF2, has given me over 500 hours of entertainment in the past two years. Compare that $50/500hr expense to a $10 2hr movie, and you can see that almost any price could be "justified" for certain games. $60 is likely selected because it's about as much as many people can drop on an impulse purchase for a purely luxury item.
Bad programmers can write "unwieldy" code in any language. High-level, dynamic, duck-typed languages are not unique in this respect.
The difference is, the app is up and running, ready to ship with the duck-typed languages, whereas people using lower level static languages are still writing converters and reconverters which don't add anything to the actual functionality of the app.
Are you referring to duck typing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Type
(For the uninitiated, this is one of the reasons Ruby and Python programmers can deliver code in a tiny fraction of the time it takes Java or C# programmers.)
This solution is egress filtering: stop all traffic going out to the internet from desktop computers. Then provide a proxy server (HTTP and SOCKS) users can use to get what they need on the net. The proxy server must be a filtering server--the sort that keeps a list of known malware sites and botnet controllers, so that it can automatically block them.
With this in place, users will still be able to get what they need from the net, but 99% of bots will be stopped.
I think your response is a damn good example of the fact that is the right venue to get a good answer to this question.
It sounds to me like you agree that this law is being used to unjustly deny Germans their rights, especially when it comes to video games.
Oh boo hoo! And what if users TALK about your site using their vocal cords?? Site owners must have some technology for disabling users' vocal chords while accessing their sites.
Not really. Having people in an off-world biosphere has benefits other than scientific: like working toward ensuring the species survives a catastrophe on Earth.
You are defending a stupid, senseless, unjust, unliberalized law. Banning all films, games, novels, drawings, etc. which are set in Nazi Germany does not protect dignity. Censoring "hate" speech or speech intended to incite violence may be an acceptable trade off for "dignity" (whatever that means), but that is NOT what is happening here. Your government is denying your right to any novel, game, or film set at that point in history, regardless of whether it is intended to promote the Nazi party or incite violence. This law very much serves aid in the denial of history, as it makes much discussion of history illegal.
That takes away your own dignity. Your government would dignify you by protecting your rights, not taking them away.
False dichotomy. You are simply wrong when you say anything but herd immunity is useless. The people who don't die of AIDS thanks to this vaccine would very much disagree with you.
You're either a stickler or a natural-born pedant.
It doesn't matter. Everyone knows what they're talking about here. If that makes you sad, go blow your nose in a Kleenex.