while other write software for a certain company that changes the direction of computing world wide...
Example? I think the only concrete example of MS innovation is the wheel-mouse, and I don't like them particularly.
Perhaps they should be teaching some of the history of computing to these idiotic dot-commers who learned VB in 1998? Bill Gates did not invent the internet.
There are powerful scripting tools available for the Windows platform. Of course, to know about them, and use them, you'd have to be more knowledgeable than say... you.
Yes, you're more knowledgable about Windows stuff. I'm sure cleaners are also more knowledgeable about toilet brushes. Since I'll never be doing Windows, since I need a proper programming environment, I guess I miss out on the junk that are "batch" files.
I wonder why MS are funding the port of Perl to Windows... could it be that they realize they can't write a decent scripting language themselves? It's a suprisingly sensible move. Who would have guessed?
Anybody who thinks 'The Web' is the main task of a server has never worked in IT in a professional capacity
And anyone who thinks "Exchange" is the main task of a server, clearly needs go and get that pesky degree.
What exactly are you doing on your server that I can't on a sensible OS, designed by educated people for qualified professionals (ie not a "business/pie chart" degree + MSCE)? Apart from needing to reboot twice a day, that is...
No, I don't see the benefit. What is it? Yes I do ports to Windows because some customers are clueless, but doing development on Windows is obviously stupid. I need a professional programming environment to be maximally productive, not "clippy the paper clip".
I forgot this, but it's worth treating separately.
You clearly don't rule squat. It's been an awfully long time since social, intellectual and artistic progress has been made by Christians.
Socially: once upon a time, the Christian overlords decided what was right and wrong, and even set the agenda of where the culture was heading. Now they play reactionary catch-up. "Contraception is bad" (need to keep people poor, and need more recruits) "Medical research of type X is bad" (might cure illness, and happy people don't find religion attractive) "That music/movie/writing/media is eeeeeeevil!" "Won't somebody think of the children?". And so on.
Intellectually: The printing press was invented to help distribute the bible. Fast forward to now - I don't think spreading the good word is the driving force behind innovation at this point. Unless TCP/IP and HTTP were actually designed to put up all those lame Christian sites out there up - but I doubt it.
And finally artistically: once, Christianity inspired, and funded the greatest art and music in western history. Now we get incredibly lame "Christion rock". Following, again. Not leading. Reacting. Irrelevant.
As far as I can see, in practical terms, Christians behave no differently than people with no religion. Enlightened self-interest is the order of the day, and I can't see Christianity clawing it's way back to the centre stage to reclaim all that it's lost.
Yes, it was. A religion has churches and a real following. "Jedi" has neither. If they did--have a real following and a somewhat formal organization (like what "wicca" has), then they'd be a real reigion. (They would still be surely made-up, like Scientology, but they'd be a legal religion.)
You said I would be committing fraud. Wrong. If I believe it's religion, it is. The end. Where does it say that you must have X churches, have Y members, etc?
Yep. The various Christian churches have been swamped in scandal recently--ever watch the news outside of/.?
I assume what you're talking about is the fairly minor localised stuff - my reaction is just, yep, no better than anyone else. I'd be more interested in finding out where that 10% of everyone's income goes...
But Christainity is not a "you must go to church or else" religion for a lot of people. Sure, church attendence is down; that doesn't mean that the people who don't go (like me) aren't Christian.
But that's surely a bad sign as a cultural force? Where's the sense of community? And of course, recruitment, reinforcement, etc...
Interesting to hear a Christian say that. Got any repeatable tests for any of the claims of Christianity?
Find me census data that lists religion. Add up all of the Christian denominations, and if they don't equal or exceed 51%, I'll conceed the point
I think Hindus win that "race". Not to worry, we'll get to them eventually. I'm an equal opportunity anti-religous bigot:)
I have no doubt that, if necessary, I could do those things
Then do it. Christianity is clearly testable. So test it. There's nothing in the passages I refer to about accidents. It's a clear, unqualified statement of what should be any Christian's magic powers. I've never met someone who's done it, therefore I've only really seen hypocritical, faithless wannabes.
Again, something non-miraculous that can be attributed to God
Why would you attribute that to God? I've never been poisoned or bitten by a snake, and I'm sure Christians have - and *died*.
Ok, then. I am better off than if I was not a Christian, because I have an offer of forgiveness
You probably haven't done anything to need forgiveness for, and if you do you're better off seeking it from those you've wronged, not from magic sky pixies.
a calling to do good, and a measurement of what "good" is
I seem to have those just fine. I'm awfully confused by where you get your measurement of good from. As far as I recall, the overwhelming message in the bible is that "it's okay to rape, kill and commit genocide, as long as the voice in your head telling you to do that stuff claims to be God".
Being as good as Jesus told us to be is difficult work, and it doens't get any immediate benefits
I've never seen any Christians doing it tough. They seem to be middle-class, relatively affluent conservative capitalists i.e. almost the exact opposite of Jesus. They're not exactly giving up their material possessions as ordered. And don't give me any of that "biblical principals for financial success" garbage, these orders come from Jesus himself and you can't weasel out of it.
But in the long-term, it benefits me personally and us as a whole
No, it doesn't. Notice a big smoking hole where the WTC used to be? Religion, again. And don't bother with the "my religion's so much better". You've been forced to play nice lately, but you'd all get back to inquisitions and holy wars pretty quick.
That's right, the world is so much better when an elitee, snobbish minority controlls the development of everything
No, the world's much better when most people are well educated. A good, broad, scientific education is the only effective innoculation against the meme that is religion.
The Cold War probably wouldn't have been quite as important if the Communist agenda wasn't atheist as well
Ah, that old chestnut. But Hitler was clearly religious. And Torquemada. And various Popes. And so on...
The trouble is, atheists make no claims about superior morality. Stalin was a bastard. So what?
And, of course, to paraphrase you I could just try to weasel out of it thusly: But things like that would have happened without X, and probably not have been as long-term productive.
Note here that X is really communism, not atheism... but I digress...
but when political and economic progress slipped backwards because of the fall of the Roman Empire
And what religion was the Roman Empire when it fell?
Now that you've attacked my religion, what are you? An atheist? A neo-pagan? I'm genuinely curious, and would appreciate a response
And I suppose you never do anything frivolous, or fun, occasionally? Like, say, anonymously trolling on/.?
What we be the *point* of living if you don't enjoy it?
If you want to wear a sack-cloth and whip yourself for other's sins for the rest of your life, get to it, and leave us out of it.
The souls of the victims are watching in horror
Blah, blah, fucking blah. We should be celebrating (quietly) that our buildings were so great, that only 3,000 died, not 50,000, as they didn't just fall straight over. Sure it's tragic, sad and horrible, but these people weren't saints, and more people die from lots of different causes every year, and aren't saints either.
You people disgust me!
Get over yourself.
followed by a Holy War against Islam
Really? Where do I sign up? If there's anything more lame than Christians, it's Muslims. We haven't thrown off one mindless, brutal religion just to become slaves of another. I won't be happy until all organized religion is in the dust-bin of history.
Funnily enough, post 9/11, it's now politically incorrect to criticise Islam (as in, it's obviously not true, has no basis in reality, and is no better than believing in pink unicorns), as you might with any other religion. Who would have guessed?
Perhaps management would have been unable to get the bid without an unrealistic deadline
Then they shouldn't lie. If the company can't get the bid without lying, then it can't get the bid. What's so hard to understand about that? Why don't managers ever seem to have ethics, or integrity?
Maybe it *is* just the ability to lie that makes someone a "good" manager - it's clearly not intelligence, skills, foresight, strategic planning or anything else that I'd find useful or helpful.
Simple. I don't compete with them. I do things they can't i.e. that require a good broad scientific education, experience, time, creativity, foresight, and talent.
You're only competing with the code monkeys if you behave like a monkey. They can *have* all the bananas they want, as far as I'm concerned.
*sigh* I'll say it again, because you're obviously too lazy to read the rest of the posts
I was replying to your post, not your post-facto apologetics.
If YOU found a church, on a lark, and you make it up, YOU are committing fraud. But your followers, who sincerely believe you, are not. Given enough time and social adjustment, your new religion could become as significant a social force as Christianity or Islam
That's not what you said at all.
Where the hell do you live? Outside of a few ghettos, Christians are still a majority in the USA
Really? Not been counting actual church attendance lately? And how many of those areas where Christianity is popular are, how shall we say, those areas of the USA not famous for intellectual activity?
George W. Bush said "Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens" and he still got to be president
No, he didn't, that was his father. I'll bet you think Dubya is just peachy keen, too.
We are a majority, and we've been a majority for so long
No, you're not. Look up the stats.
and we've been shocked by so many recent scandals (in the past 50 years--recent memory culturally speaking) that we just don't have a good way to express the religion in public
What scandals? You mean, being a failure, and rapidly becoming irrelevent?
I'm just speaking from experience. The few Christians I've known were considered, by and large, to be a bit odd to say the least. And they weren't exactly the best or the brightest, either.
Anyway, the US is the last place in the modern, industrialized world that takes Christianity seriously, but in this case it's just dying more slowly. The only "growth areas" for this fantasy are in the third world, where people are largely uneducated.
Why the hell would I turn away from the benefits of the land that God has seen fit to place me in to live, and arrogantly demand that he intercede to miraculously cure me?
So, God's powers are limited? Interesing, for an all-powerful being.
Besides, Jesus clearly said that Christians would be able to drink poison, and be bitten by venomous snakes and not be harmed. No doctors are mentioned. Done either of those lately, or is Christianity really just total bullshit?
God is and has been for quite some time a creature of subtulty. Anyone who abandons medicine and only prays deserves to die. You let the doctors do what they will and they can, and you pray to supplement them, not replace them
So, suddenly we're not allowed to ask for Him to actually do anything, when previously he would divide seas, murder babies, order genocide and so on (subtle, He's not). That's *awfully* convenient. I'll have to remember that trick, when I invent my religion to fleece the gullible. You're clearly no better off than if you were not a Christian (and don't give me that "fires of hell" childishness).
Science works. Religion doesn't. Never has, never will. Since the enlightment, and the beginning of the ascendency of science and reason, we've had nothing but general improvement in the average standard of living - whereas under Christianity we just had endless plagues, crusades, inquisitions, and so on. Your time is at an end - that's obvious looking at the trends. This is not called the post-Christian era for nothing. You had your time. The future is our time.
Since maturing, I have not been seriously injured or sick, and I thank Jesus for that
PRAISE JESUS!! Do you really think the baby Jesus helped you with that?
So, do you give your church 10% of your gross or after-tax income?
(Sorry about the religous rant but, man, you asked for it.)
No, you did. You said, "Got a problem with that?". I do. I'd rather not go back to the time when Christianity ruled, which is widely regards as "the dark ages". Just go back to not understanding maths and science, and trying to prove "creationism", believing in magic fairies, and let the educated, sensible get on with the actual thinking. Go back to your Christian music, Christian books, Christian TV and all that other lame crap i.e. to your Christian ghetto (once the "Christian" prefix was implicit in everything. Not any more).
Because they're made-up, mythical, and there are no--repeat, NO--Jedi churches
So? Christianity is made-up and mythical. So apparently all I have to do is gather enough dissaffected dorks into a "church", cream off 10% of their gross income, and I have to be taken seriously.
YES, I'm a Christian. Got a problem with that?
No, since Christianity has been effectively ghetto-ised, and is no longer significant culturally or intellectually, or even taken seriously any longer. Declaring your Christianity almost always gets odd reactions. That just can't be good for that faith as a cultural force.
Next time you're seriously injured or sick, pray instead of relying on science. I dare you. Bet you don't trust Jesus *that* much!
If you are younger than this, you are used to a job market so hot that you can just walk into another job
There's a downside to this for management as well - remember that they *can't* promise that you'll "get rich quick" anytime now if you just work yourself to death for a few more weeks.
Just look at your pay. Is it worth it? Ignore all the stock options and other empty promises.
A real problem is that with the high-tech past, how does the future become so mundane in just a generation?
Because the evil empire, once it's bought out the government and betrayed the guardians of justice, introduces laws and starts fear campaigns that restrict and retard all innovation.
Take, for example the backward, harsh technology of a TIE fighter that causes it's pilot to be nothing more than a restricted extension of the will of the Empire. No doubt Vader can shut down any single TIE fighter pilot remotely that infringes the DMCA. Now compare it to that of an X-Wing, which empowers the pilot to go wherever they like, and do whatever they like. And with enough security (shields), life-support systems, computing power (R2 unit) and weaponary to be reasonably independent. The Windows/Unix analogy is clear!
Watching EP1 last night on the Movie channel I had a rather interesting insight. That Anakin is/was always the second Sith [candidate].
Anakin 'imaculate conception', hint's of genetic engineer, aka The Clone-Wars.
Yes, that's also what I suspect. I'll go a step further... Vader had not only external injuries but apparantly massive internal ones that required the used of artificial lungs, regular use of a decompression chamber of some kind, and so on.
Did they remember to remove that explosive that Anakin was implanted with? Perhaps Obi-Wan figures out how to set it off when Anakin joins the dark side... after that only his hate/link to the dark side keeps him alive.
> This crap almost makes you feel like becoming a Trekkie (shudder). At least they > come up with an interesting story and leave the visuals as a compliment to it.
You mean as in Voyager? "Oh, no here's another anomaly/special effect that's affecting us/the ship in some dull way"... "Quick, hit that reset button so that everything will be exactly like it was at the beginning of the episode"... "Ah, all fixed".
Repeat ad infinitum, and mix in a few lame rip-offs of Next-Gen (i.e. shamelessly re-using Q and the Borg instead of thinking of something original) and that's about it.
Or in Star Trek: Insurrection? *shudder*
They should clearly not make any more "Star Trek" movies or television shows for a minimum of five years, instead of just slowly milking it to death. I know it will hurt you trekkies, but it'll be better in the long run!
> Hi *me* again. I'd just like to say, as a follow up, that if you care to > actually disprove what I say about you, t
Why would I care what the likes of you thinks?
I've raised my opinion based on my experience - that pure management offers nothing. I know this because I can do all the "project management" for my team. When I've had a PM, I've ended up basically doing their tasks for them because it's actually quicker, and less mistakes get made.
If someone can tell me why it would benefit me to have an entirely separate PM, then I'd like to hear it.
> What companies have you worked for? What jobs? What are YOUR qualifications? > What are YOUR responsibilities? How about demonstrating that you have any real > expertise in anything other than what you've been instructed in in school or > heard about on forums like slashdot and from dilbert? Maybe even a link to show > that you're older than ~21
Why don't you? Answer - I couldn't care less. You can either debate the issue at hand or just scurry away, as others have done.
> Of course, you won't comply because you can't prove what you haven't done....
And you won't debate properly because you can't think clearly or logically, based on your attempts at ad hominem attacks so far.
> Hi *me* again. As much as you may deny it, you're either still in school or > barely out of it.
> It's quite obvious by your outright lack of respect and > understanding for what is required to run a company.
We weren't talking about "running a company". We were talking about "management". God forbid the pure managers I know ever start their own company...
> Even the most bitter of > experienced engineers have at least some comprehension, even if begruding, that > running the company is more involved than just their particular jobs.
Try reading what was said. Perhaps this interactive communication thing is too much for you. May I suggest something more passive? I hear television is very popular with your kind.
> Not to > mention the way you throw words around... It's as if your insight into this > problem comes strictly from Dilbert.
This seems like a spinal-column response to any criticism of management. Try actually debating the issues raised, instead.
>> having failed to refute my point, "anonymous coward".
> What the fuck is *that* supposed to mean, "dpt"?
It means that you've failed to address the issue.
> If you had balls and stood behind what you write here, you'd post a URL or an > email address. Near as I can tell you're just a fucking coward yourself.
I don't want to be spammed or attacked in other ways by the likes of you, no.
And if I'm a coward, what does that make you, exactly?
Ah, the high standard of debate on/. Good one. I think I saw that in a previous thread where someone had run out of arguments.
Again, everything I've said comes from experience.
> We're growing tired of crap like that.
Because you can't refute it? At least try, maybe you can convince us otherwise.
> It's hard work to manage a project well. I've seen good coders fail at it > dismally.
I know. Read what I said previously. What I object to is having separate "managers". It never works, because they don't contribute anything. Often, they are actually failed coders.
I'm still waiting for that list of what a "pure" manager contributes, BTW.
>> I've honestly never seen pure managers work harder than the engineers. They're >> usually in at 9, out at 6. > > Of course, one could make the argument that this is proof that the managers are > smarter than the engineers.:->
Yes, in the broad sense;) I often wonder if they're just faking it, and return home to lives of rich intellectual stimulation - dissecting the classic computer science texts, coding whatever cool thing they feel like, studying physics, creating wonderous works of art and so on. And laughing at the stupid coders over their fine ports and cigars.
All that talking about "Friends", books by Tom Clancy, whatever mass-media distraction is "happening" (*), and furrowing their brows furiously when the engineers talk, is just a very clever act. I'm on to it now...
(*) I'm sorry if you like any of these things. I appreciate distraction, too - but some people just don't seem to know that's what it is - and they build their lives around it. But that's a story for another time.
> That said, it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no practical work > experience to know of which you speak.
Sadly, I speak from bitter experience.
> You're almost certainly an undergrad somewhere judging by your sophmoric > discourse.
That would be "sophomoric";) And it's more reasonable than yours, which comes across as very naive. Did computer science look like a good alternative to business school in the dot-com boom?
> To say that you can "objectively" measure an engineer's worth any better than > you can a manager's is pure fiction. You *might* be able to test for certain > skills, but that's only a small fraction of the skill set required in the real > world.
And what exactly does the average manager contribute to a project? Apart from fiddling with Microsoft project, performing simple arithmetic, insisting on doing things that are wrong and/or impossible (that I then have to spend my time refuting), and promising very silly things to the customer?
> And the product that is produced is no more objective than a manager's. > Sure, you might be able to say that widget A is 20% faster, but is it really > more maintainable? does that piece of code integrate well? does it have any bugs > or design flaws? it's really not too different from a managers.
Seriously, what exactly does a manager contribute? Something concrete, please. Not "synergy";)
> furthermore, there are a lot of managers out there and i'd say the proportion of > moron managers is roughly the same as that of engineers.
Yes, but I can *teach* the engineers.
I can't help the manager who, say, refuses to understand how 'cd' works. I'm not making this up - I wish I were.
> many managers, if by > that you mean anyone that doesn't code/engineer and/or deals with the business > side of things, work extremely long hours far longer than most engineers or > programmers {baring the rare few marathon sessions and such).
You're joking, right?
I've honestly never seen pure managers work harder than the engineers. They're usually in at 9, out at 6. Of course, YMMV, and maybe I'm just embittered. So, has anyone else seen the hard working manager, or the clueful one? I've known none that weren't also working on the code base in some aspect at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
while other write software for a certain company that changes the direction of computing world wide...
Example? I think the only concrete example of MS innovation is the wheel-mouse, and I don't like them particularly.
Perhaps they should be teaching some of the history of computing to these idiotic dot-commers who learned VB in 1998? Bill Gates did not invent the internet.
There are powerful scripting tools available for the Windows platform. Of course, to know about them, and use them, you'd have to be more knowledgeable than say... you.
... could it be that they realize they can't write a decent scripting language themselves? It's a suprisingly sensible move. Who would have guessed?
Yes, you're more knowledgable about Windows stuff. I'm sure cleaners are also more knowledgeable about toilet brushes. Since I'll never be doing Windows, since I need a proper programming environment, I guess I miss out on the junk that are "batch" files.
I wonder why MS are funding the port of Perl to Windows
Anybody who thinks 'The Web' is the main task of a server has never worked in IT in a professional capacity
...
And anyone who thinks "Exchange" is the main task of a server, clearly needs go and get that pesky degree.
What exactly are you doing on your server that I can't on a sensible OS, designed by educated people for qualified professionals (ie not a "business/pie chart" degree + MSCE)? Apart from needing to reboot twice a day, that is
No, I don't see the benefit. What is it? Yes I do ports to Windows because some customers are clueless, but doing development on Windows is obviously stupid. I need a professional programming environment to be maximally productive, not "clippy the paper clip".
In a lot of ways, we *still* rule;
I forgot this, but it's worth treating separately.
You clearly don't rule squat. It's been an awfully long time since social, intellectual and artistic progress has been made by Christians.
Socially: once upon a time, the Christian overlords decided what was right and wrong, and even set the agenda of where the culture was heading. Now they play reactionary catch-up. "Contraception is bad" (need to keep people poor, and need more recruits) "Medical research of type X is bad" (might cure illness, and happy people don't find religion attractive) "That music/movie/writing/media is eeeeeeevil!" "Won't somebody think of the children?". And so on.
Intellectually: The printing press was invented to help distribute the bible. Fast forward to now - I don't think spreading the good word is the driving force behind innovation at this point. Unless TCP/IP and HTTP were actually designed to put up all those lame Christian sites out there up - but I doubt it.
And finally artistically: once, Christianity inspired, and funded the greatest art and music in western history. Now we get incredibly lame "Christion rock". Following, again. Not leading. Reacting. Irrelevant.
As far as I can see, in practical terms, Christians behave no differently than people with no religion. Enlightened self-interest is the order of the day, and I can't see Christianity clawing it's way back to the centre stage to reclaim all that it's lost.
It's not leading, and it's not ruling. See?
Yes, it was. A religion has churches and a real following. "Jedi" has neither. If they did--have a real following and a somewhat formal organization (like what "wicca" has), then they'd be a real reigion. (They would still be surely made-up, like Scientology, but they'd be a legal religion.)
/.?
...
...
:)
...
... but I digress ...
You said I would be committing fraud. Wrong. If I believe it's religion, it is. The end. Where does it say that you must have X churches, have Y members, etc?
Yep. The various Christian churches have been swamped in scandal recently--ever watch the news outside of
I assume what you're talking about is the fairly minor localised stuff - my reaction is just, yep, no better than anyone else. I'd be more interested in finding out where that 10% of everyone's income goes
But Christainity is not a "you must go to church or else" religion for a lot of people. Sure, church attendence is down; that doesn't mean that the people who don't go (like me) aren't Christian.
But that's surely a bad sign as a cultural force? Where's the sense of community? And of course, recruitment, reinforcement, etc
"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."
Interesting to hear a Christian say that. Got any repeatable tests for any of the claims of Christianity?
Find me census data that lists religion. Add up all of the Christian denominations, and if they don't equal or exceed 51%, I'll conceed the point
I think Hindus win that "race". Not to worry, we'll get to them eventually. I'm an equal opportunity anti-religous bigot
I have no doubt that, if necessary, I could do those things
Then do it. Christianity is clearly testable. So test it. There's nothing in the passages I refer to about accidents. It's a clear, unqualified statement of what should be any Christian's magic powers. I've never met someone who's done it, therefore I've only really seen hypocritical, faithless wannabes.
Again, something non-miraculous that can be attributed to God
Why would you attribute that to God? I've never been poisoned or bitten by a snake, and I'm sure Christians have - and *died*.
Ok, then. I am better off than if I was not a Christian, because I have an offer of forgiveness
You probably haven't done anything to need forgiveness for, and if you do you're better off seeking it from those you've wronged, not from magic sky pixies.
a calling to do good, and a measurement of what "good" is
I seem to have those just fine. I'm awfully confused by where you get your measurement of good from. As far as I recall, the overwhelming message in the bible is that "it's okay to rape, kill and commit genocide, as long as the voice in your head telling you to do that stuff claims to be God".
Being as good as Jesus told us to be is difficult work, and it doens't get any immediate benefits
I've never seen any Christians doing it tough. They seem to be middle-class, relatively affluent conservative capitalists i.e. almost the exact opposite of Jesus. They're not exactly giving up their material possessions as ordered. And don't give me any of that "biblical principals for financial success" garbage, these orders come from Jesus himself and you can't weasel out of it.
But in the long-term, it benefits me personally and us as a whole
No, it doesn't. Notice a big smoking hole where the WTC used to be? Religion, again. And don't bother with the "my religion's so much better". You've been forced to play nice lately, but you'd all get back to inquisitions and holy wars pretty quick.
That's right, the world is so much better when an elitee, snobbish minority controlls the development of everything
No, the world's much better when most people are well educated. A good, broad, scientific education is the only effective innoculation against the meme that is religion.
The Cold War probably wouldn't have been quite as important if the Communist agenda wasn't atheist as well
Ah, that old chestnut. But Hitler was clearly religious. And Torquemada. And various Popes. And so on
The trouble is, atheists make no claims about superior morality. Stalin was a bastard. So what?
And, of course, to paraphrase you I could just try to weasel out of it thusly:
But things like that would have happened without X, and probably not have been as long-term productive.
Note here that X is really communism, not atheism
but when political and economic progress slipped backwards because of the fall of the Roman Empire
And what religion was the Roman Empire when it fell?
Now that you've attacked my religion, what are you? An atheist? A neo-pagan? I'm genuinely curious, and would appreciate a response
No religion.
And I suppose you never do anything frivolous, or fun, occasionally? Like, say, anonymously trolling on /.?
What we be the *point* of living if you don't enjoy it?
If you want to wear a sack-cloth and whip yourself for other's sins for the rest of your life, get to it, and leave us out of it.
The souls of the victims are watching in horror
Blah, blah, fucking blah. We should be celebrating (quietly) that our buildings were so great, that only 3,000 died, not 50,000, as they didn't just fall straight over. Sure it's tragic, sad and horrible, but these people weren't saints, and more people die from lots of different causes every year, and aren't saints either.
You people disgust me!
Get over yourself.
followed by a Holy War against Islam
Really? Where do I sign up? If there's anything more lame than Christians, it's Muslims. We haven't thrown off one mindless, brutal religion just to become slaves of another. I won't be happy until all organized religion is in the dust-bin of history.
Funnily enough, post 9/11, it's now politically incorrect to criticise Islam (as in, it's obviously not true, has no basis in reality, and is no better than believing in pink unicorns), as you might with any other religion. Who would have guessed?
Perhaps management would have been unable to get the bid without an unrealistic deadline
Then they shouldn't lie. If the company can't get the bid without lying, then it can't get the bid. What's so hard to understand about that? Why don't managers ever seem to have ethics, or integrity?
Maybe it *is* just the ability to lie that makes someone a "good" manager - it's clearly not intelligence, skills, foresight, strategic planning or anything else that I'd find useful or helpful.
Simple. I don't compete with them. I do things they can't i.e. that require a good broad scientific education, experience, time, creativity, foresight, and talent.
You're only competing with the code monkeys if you behave like a monkey. They can *have* all the bananas they want, as far as I'm concerned.
*sigh* I'll say it again, because you're obviously too lazy to read the rest of the posts
I was replying to your post, not your post-facto apologetics.
If YOU found a church, on a lark, and you make it up, YOU are committing fraud. But your followers, who sincerely believe you, are not. Given enough time and social adjustment, your new religion could become as significant a social force as Christianity or Islam
That's not what you said at all.
Where the hell do you live? Outside of a few ghettos, Christians are still a majority in the USA
Really? Not been counting actual church attendance lately? And how many of those areas where Christianity is popular are, how shall we say, those areas of the USA not famous for intellectual activity?
George W. Bush said "Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens" and he still got to be president
No, he didn't, that was his father. I'll bet you think Dubya is just peachy keen, too.
We are a majority, and we've been a majority for so long
No, you're not. Look up the stats.
and we've been shocked by so many recent scandals (in the past 50 years--recent memory culturally speaking) that we just don't have a good way to express the religion in public
What scandals? You mean, being a failure, and rapidly becoming irrelevent?
I'm just speaking from experience. The few Christians I've known were considered, by and large, to be a bit odd to say the least. And they weren't exactly the best or the brightest, either.
Anyway, the US is the last place in the modern, industrialized world that takes Christianity seriously, but in this case it's just dying more slowly. The only "growth areas" for this fantasy are in the third world, where people are largely uneducated.
Why the hell would I turn away from the benefits of the land that God has seen fit to place me in to live, and arrogantly demand that he intercede to miraculously cure me?
So, God's powers are limited? Interesing, for an all-powerful being.
Besides, Jesus clearly said that Christians would be able to drink poison, and be bitten by venomous snakes and not be harmed. No doctors are mentioned. Done either of those lately, or is Christianity really just total bullshit?
God is and has been for quite some time a creature of subtulty. Anyone who abandons medicine and only prays deserves to die. You let the doctors do what they will and they can, and you pray to supplement them, not replace them
So, suddenly we're not allowed to ask for Him to actually do anything, when previously he would divide seas, murder babies, order genocide and so on (subtle, He's not). That's *awfully* convenient. I'll have to remember that trick, when I invent my religion to fleece the gullible. You're clearly no better off than if you were not a Christian (and don't give me that "fires of hell" childishness).
Science works. Religion doesn't. Never has, never will. Since the enlightment, and the beginning of the ascendency of science and reason, we've had nothing but general improvement in the average standard of living - whereas under Christianity we just had endless plagues, crusades, inquisitions, and so on. Your time is at an end - that's obvious looking at the trends. This is not called the post-Christian era for nothing. You had your time. The future is our time.
Since maturing, I have not been seriously injured or sick, and I thank Jesus for that
PRAISE JESUS!! Do you really think the baby Jesus helped you with that?
So, do you give your church 10% of your gross or after-tax income?
(Sorry about the religous rant but, man, you asked for it.)
No, you did. You said, "Got a problem with that?". I do. I'd rather not go back to the time when Christianity ruled, which is widely regards as "the dark ages". Just go back to not understanding maths and science, and trying to prove "creationism", believing in magic fairies, and let the educated, sensible get on with the actual thinking. Go back to your Christian music, Christian books, Christian TV and all that other lame crap i.e. to your Christian ghetto (once the "Christian" prefix was implicit in everything. Not any more).
Because they're made-up, mythical, and there are no--repeat, NO--Jedi churches
So? Christianity is made-up and mythical. So apparently all I have to do is gather enough dissaffected dorks into a "church", cream off 10% of their gross income, and I have to be taken seriously.
YES, I'm a Christian. Got a problem with that?
No, since Christianity has been effectively ghetto-ised, and is no longer significant culturally or intellectually, or even taken seriously any longer. Declaring your Christianity almost always gets odd reactions. That just can't be good for that faith as a cultural force.
Next time you're seriously injured or sick, pray instead of relying on science. I dare you. Bet you don't trust Jesus *that* much!
If you are younger than this, you are used to a job market so hot that you can just walk into another job
There's a downside to this for management as well - remember that they *can't* promise that you'll "get rich quick" anytime now if you just work yourself to death for a few more weeks.
Just look at your pay. Is it worth it? Ignore all the stock options and other empty promises.
Yes, how I love running GUIs that are ugly, slow, and take up a fucking unbelievable 46M.
"This comes with a Java GUI? Oh, that's too bad, I'll be buying from your competitor, thanks."
The end.
It had to be said - this guy's just a pathetic whiner.
So, who would move my large, and full, book shelf every single day?
This strategy is clearly completely brain-dead.
A real problem is that with the high-tech past, how does the future become so mundane in just a generation?
Because the evil empire, once it's bought out the government and betrayed the guardians of justice, introduces laws and starts fear campaigns that restrict and retard all innovation.
Take, for example the backward, harsh technology of a TIE fighter that causes it's pilot to be nothing more than a restricted extension of the will of the Empire. No doubt Vader can shut down any single TIE fighter pilot remotely that infringes the DMCA. Now compare it to that of an X-Wing, which empowers the pilot to go wherever they like, and do whatever they like. And with enough security (shields), life-support systems, computing power (R2 unit) and weaponary to be reasonably independent. The Windows/Unix analogy is clear!
Watching EP1 last night on the Movie channel I had a rather interesting insight.
That Anakin is/was always the second Sith [candidate].
Anakin 'imaculate conception', hint's of genetic engineer, aka The Clone-Wars.
Yes, that's also what I suspect. I'll go a step further
Did they remember to remove that explosive that Anakin was implanted with? Perhaps Obi-Wan figures out how to set it off when Anakin joins the dark side
> This crap almost makes you feel like becoming a Trekkie (shudder). At least they > come up with an interesting story and leave the visuals as a compliment to it.
You mean as in Voyager? "Oh, no here's another anomaly/special effect that's affecting us/the ship in some dull way"
Repeat ad infinitum, and mix in a few lame rip-offs of Next-Gen (i.e. shamelessly re-using Q and the Borg instead of thinking of something original) and that's about it.
Or in Star Trek: Insurrection? *shudder*
They should clearly not make any more "Star Trek" movies or television shows for a minimum of five years, instead of just slowly milking it to death. I know it will hurt you trekkies, but it'll be better in the long run!
> Hi *me* again. I'd just like to say, as a follow up, that if you care to
> actually disprove what I say about you, t
Why would I care what the likes of you thinks?
I've raised my opinion based on my experience - that pure management offers nothing. I know this because I can do all the "project management" for my team. When I've had a PM, I've ended up basically doing their tasks for them because it's actually quicker, and less mistakes get made.
If someone can tell me why it would benefit me to have an entirely separate PM, then I'd like to hear it.
> What companies have you worked for? What jobs? What are YOUR qualifications?
> What are YOUR responsibilities? How about demonstrating that you have any real
> expertise in anything other than what you've been instructed in in school or
> heard about on forums like slashdot and from dilbert? Maybe even a link to show
> that you're older than ~21
Why don't you? Answer - I couldn't care less. You can either debate the issue at hand or just scurry away, as others have done.
> Of course, you won't comply because you can't prove what you haven't done....
And you won't debate properly because you can't think clearly or logically, based on your attempts at ad hominem attacks so far.
> Hi *me* again. As much as you may deny it, you're either still in school or
...
> barely out of it.
> It's quite obvious by your outright lack of respect and
> understanding for what is required to run a company.
We weren't talking about "running a company". We were talking about "management". God forbid the pure managers I know ever start their own company
> Even the most bitter of
> experienced engineers have at least some comprehension, even if begruding, that
> running the company is more involved than just their particular jobs.
Try reading what was said. Perhaps this interactive communication thing is too much for you. May I suggest something more passive? I hear television is very popular with your kind.
> Not to
> mention the way you throw words around... It's as if your insight into this
> problem comes strictly from Dilbert.
This seems like a spinal-column response to any criticism of management. Try actually debating the issues raised, instead.
>> having failed to refute my point, "anonymous coward".
> What the fuck is *that* supposed to mean, "dpt"?
It means that you've failed to address the issue.
> If you had balls and stood behind what you write here, you'd post a URL or an
> email address. Near as I can tell you're just a fucking coward yourself.
I don't want to be spammed or attacked in other ways by the likes of you, no.
And if I'm a coward, what does that make you, exactly?
> Please stop shitting out Dilbertisms.
/. Good one. I think I saw that in a previous thread where someone had run out of arguments.
Ah, the high standard of debate on
Again, everything I've said comes from experience.
> We're growing tired of crap like that.
Because you can't refute it? At least try, maybe you can convince us otherwise.
> It's hard work to manage a project well. I've seen good coders fail at it
> dismally.
I know. Read what I said previously. What I object to is having separate "managers". It never works, because they don't contribute anything. Often, they are actually failed coders.
I'm still waiting for that list of what a "pure" manager contributes, BTW.
>> I've honestly never seen pure managers work harder than the engineers. They're :->
;) I often wonder if they're just faking it, and return home to lives of rich intellectual stimulation - dissecting the classic computer science texts, coding whatever cool thing they feel like, studying physics, creating wonderous works of art and so on. And laughing at the stupid coders over their fine ports and cigars.
...
>> usually in at 9, out at 6.
>
> Of course, one could make the argument that this is proof that the managers are
> smarter than the engineers.
Yes, in the broad sense
All that talking about "Friends", books by Tom Clancy, whatever mass-media distraction is "happening" (*), and furrowing their brows furiously when the engineers talk, is just a very clever act. I'm on to it now
(*) I'm sorry if you like any of these things. I appreciate distraction, too - but some people just don't seem to know that's what it is - and they build their lives around it. But that's a story for another time.
Yes, I knew that. I was referring to popular /. myth. Hence the winky-smily.
> That said, it's blatantly obvious to me that you have no practical work
;) And it's more reasonable than yours, which comes across as very naive. Did computer science look like a good alternative to business school in the dot-com boom?
;)
> experience to know of which you speak.
Sadly, I speak from bitter experience.
> You're almost certainly an undergrad somewhere judging by your sophmoric
> discourse.
That would be "sophomoric"
> To say that you can "objectively" measure an engineer's worth any better than
> you can a manager's is pure fiction. You *might* be able to test for certain
> skills, but that's only a small fraction of the skill set required in the real
> world.
And what exactly does the average manager contribute to a project? Apart from fiddling with Microsoft project, performing simple arithmetic, insisting on doing things that are wrong and/or impossible (that I then have to spend my time refuting), and promising very silly things to the customer?
> And the product that is produced is no more objective than a manager's.
> Sure, you might be able to say that widget A is 20% faster, but is it really
> more maintainable? does that piece of code integrate well? does it have any bugs
> or design flaws? it's really not too different from a managers.
Seriously, what exactly does a manager contribute? Something concrete, please. Not "synergy"
> furthermore, there are a lot of managers out there and i'd say the proportion of
> moron managers is roughly the same as that of engineers.
Yes, but I can *teach* the engineers.
I can't help the manager who, say, refuses to understand how 'cd' works. I'm not making this up - I wish I were.
> many managers, if by
> that you mean anyone that doesn't code/engineer and/or deals with the business
> side of things, work extremely long hours far longer than most engineers or
> programmers {baring the rare few marathon sessions and such).
You're joking, right?
I've honestly never seen pure managers work harder than the engineers. They're usually in at 9, out at 6. Of course, YMMV, and maybe I'm just embittered. So, has anyone else seen the hard working manager, or the clueful one? I've known none that weren't also working on the code base in some aspect at the same time.