The major problem is that courts have held companies liable for their employee's conduct, even when that conduct is against company policy
I know of a case where a woman complained about
receiving offensive email and the company did
nothing about it, but I haven't heard of a case
where the employee went straight to the courts.
I think the reason for the poor code lies more
in the shortened development cycle than anything
else. The eXtreme camp would say refactor, but
usually the conditions that caused the shortened
cycle in the first place mean you can't go back.
If the conditions are caused by poor project management, that is one thing. Often though, they
are brought about as the only means for
survival.
I also take exception with the comp-sci dig =). I
think a good comp-sci curricula leads to LESS
slipshod code. I've seen too many people reinvent
the wheel (poorly) because they didn't understand
basic computer science concepts and design.
The teaching of which is the goal of the very
first class in the curriculum.
I think most people would have to disagree there.
What we would probably agree on is that speed of
completion often takes precedence over correctness, and that is unfortunate. Speed of
completion is very important in all fields of
engineering.
Do Mechanical Engineers have contests to see who can design a bridge the fastest? NO!
Still, I would have to agree that there is
a problem with the field of programming being
recognized as a legitimate field. Who knows,
perhaps the downturn will further this advance.
Well, maybe just a little one. I think the GPL
has everything to do with freedom. I would argue
that the GPL gives the freedom to the software,
not to the people. It forces (as much as
possible) distributors/users to keep the software
free.
> doing some training during work hours at half salary
Yeah, right. I don't know what you have in mind,
but if training is beneficial to me _AND_ the
company, then I don't believe I should take
1/2 salary or any other kind of hit.
Competition alone is not enough. I think that's
where most people get confused. To have capitalism,
you must have _private ownership_. Socialism
and competition are not mutually exclusive.
Of course no one wants a big, intrusive government. Or a big, intrusive business.
Or a big, intrusive bureaucracy of _any_ kind.
But, you can have that with capitalism just as
easily as you can with socialism.
> Imagine the most incestuos, concentrated group
> of incompetents on charge of your job, your
> welfare and your career, and that's only the
> tip of the iceberg
Who would that be? Management?
=)
Here are the flaws in your logic
on
Dial U for Union
·
· Score: 2
You are arguing from a particular case and
applying it to a general case.
Just because you had a bad experience with
a local teamsters shop, doesn't
1) Mean that that shop was bad. Others
you worked with could have had a positive
experience with that shop.
2) Mean that the teamsters are bad. There
can be a bad shop within the teamsters, while
the majority of teamsters shops are good.
3) Mean that unions are bad. The teamsters
are just one example of a union. There can
be other worker's organizations besides the
teamsters. A union dedicated to lobbying
Washington comes to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
If the company treats the employees like they
are no good miscreants, how do you think the
employees will start acting?
That sounds like a horrible place to work.
What makes you stay?
I know of a case where a woman complained about receiving offensive email and the company did nothing about it, but I haven't heard of a case where the employee went straight to the courts.
Could you provide me with a link?
I think the reason for the poor code lies more in the shortened development cycle than anything else. The eXtreme camp would say refactor, but usually the conditions that caused the shortened cycle in the first place mean you can't go back. If the conditions are caused by poor project management, that is one thing. Often though, they are brought about as the only means for survival.
Maybe we should just stick with safe languages?
I also take exception with the comp-sci dig =). I think a good comp-sci curricula leads to LESS slipshod code. I've seen too many people reinvent the wheel (poorly) because they didn't understand basic computer science concepts and design. The teaching of which is the goal of the very first class in the curriculum.
Don't let these guys hook up with the RIAA.
oh for the love of some mod points...
I would mod this up.
imho...
C++ isn't easy to understand for a beginner.
The books listed below are the best at explaining it.
This book is online:
Thinking in C++
You'll have to pay for these:
Accelerated C++
C++ Primer
I think most people would have to disagree there. What we would probably agree on is that speed of completion often takes precedence over correctness, and that is unfortunate. Speed of completion is very important in all fields of engineering.
Sure they do. Check out the ASCE/AISC bridge building competition. Here is a pdf of the rules
Still, I would have to agree that there is a problem with the field of programming being recognized as a legitimate field. Who knows, perhaps the downturn will further this advance.
You'll get no argument from me.
;)
Well, maybe just a little one. I think the GPL
has everything to do with freedom. I would argue
that the GPL gives the freedom to the software,
not to the people. It forces (as much as
possible) distributors/users to keep the software
free.
good point.
I got a little knee-jerky.
Would you apply the same argument for corporate
favor? i.e. as an argument _for_ copyright laws?
> It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do
Yeah, but I HAVE RIGHTS TOO. It is _MY INFORMATION_, not theirs.
I'm with Nader on this one all the way.
It should be OPT-IN rather than OPT-OUT.
> doing some training during work hours at half salary
Yeah, right. I don't know what you have in mind,
but if training is beneficial to me _AND_ the
company, then I don't believe I should take
1/2 salary or any other kind of hit.
Competition alone is not enough. I think that's
where most people get confused. To have capitalism,
you must have _private ownership_. Socialism
and competition are not mutually exclusive.
Of course no one wants a big, intrusive government. Or a big, intrusive business.
Or a big, intrusive bureaucracy of _any_ kind.
But, you can have that with capitalism just as
easily as you can with socialism.
> Capitalism has held up fairly well for a LONG time now
What do you consider a _LONG_ time? Private
property is a relatively recent occurence.
You're not confusing capitalism with trading
are you?
see:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/02275.html
> A society in which Man A is paid equally as Man B
t ml
I think you are uninformed about socialism. Start with the basics:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/12035.h
From his letter:
"Darwin is substantially based on FreeBSD 3.2"
I don't know if that qualifies as a 'basis'
or not in you definition, but I would certainly
say the kernel isn't _THAT_ different.
/.!
Age old philosophical debate finally put to rest!
Is that the best you've got?
You say the sector is swamped with substandard
workers who command ridiculous salries & benefits.
Then you say that you prefer to work in a world
where you get rewarded based on your performance.
Which world is it? One that pays substandard
people high salaries? One that pays based on
performance?
> Imagine the most incestuos, concentrated group
> of incompetents on charge of your job, your
> welfare and your career, and that's only the
> tip of the iceberg
Who would that be? Management?
=)
You are arguing from a particular case and
applying it to a general case.
Just because you had a bad experience with
a local teamsters shop, doesn't
1) Mean that that shop was bad. Others
you worked with could have had a positive
experience with that shop.
2) Mean that the teamsters are bad. There
can be a bad shop within the teamsters, while
the majority of teamsters shops are good.
3) Mean that unions are bad. The teamsters
are just one example of a union. There can
be other worker's organizations besides the
teamsters. A union dedicated to lobbying
Washington comes to mind.
Have a good day,
If we don't get more hi-tech workers, the
u.s. economy is in _SERIOUS_ trouble.
A flood of super-cheap labor is just what
the economy needs to get moving again.
If it is a really unfair law, I would wager
there would be plenty of lawyers willing
to take the case on contingency.
Just wait till all the shitty windows developers
start developing for linux. Then we'll talk.
No WAIT!
There must be a catch somewhere!
There always is with LAWYERS (unless
they're conservative republicans).
I say get lawyers out of our lives and let
business take care of things!
Things are cheap at the company store!