I recently moved from Seattle to Washington D.C. and the difference in racial makeup as a whole takes a while to get used to (see below). Whatever the statitistics on programmers' racial makeup might be, the additional statistic that might come into play is the local population as a whole.
Actaully, I just ran to the Census web site and got the following numbers;
Population of Washington State (esitmate): 5756361
Black Population of the state (esitmate): 203853
Percentage: 3.5%
It seems that blacks at Microsoft are slightly "under-represented", but there are so many other variables (education, age, etc., etc.)...
* I would kill for a decent bowl of Pho, an inexpensive vegetarian Phad Thai, or a good sushi restaraunt that doesn't cost an arm and a leg... If they build another goddamned steak house in D.C. I think my colon's gonna blow.
Even now, I would really like to have a little bit of control over my Dish TV? Why can't I choose the channel's I pay my $20 a month for? I havn't looked at a single one of the five or six shopping channels, the six or seven sports channels, or the four religious channels.
On the other hand, I'd like to get the tech channel (what a geek), BBC America, and MTV2. I'd be willing to trade...
Oh well, corportations like to talk about the free market, but they certainly wouldn't like it if it got here. Imagine a world where channels had to compete for the viewer's dollar? HBO does it to a certain extent and that seems to be why they produce some cutting edge material.
Don't patents only last nine years (seven, eleven, an odd number, I thought). At worst, only patent #3 would apply, right. Or can a company who's patent has expired go after someone for past patent violations.
I think there is something to be learned from the metaphore that Thomas Jefferson used to describe the movement of ideas. The receipient of an idea "receives light without darkening mine." This is undoubtably a positive image but it seems somewhat outdated in the current climate of patent/copyright wars.
This is important, because it seems to me that a more common metaphore in modern times is that of a "meme" which is likened to a virus. Generally, the image is much more negative.
Open source, in its most general sense, seems to be born in the first metaphore; I program to enlighten myself and, by doing so, enlighten others.
Proprietary software, I'm going to pick on Apple in this case, wants to work like the second idea; I present the open aspects (TrueType) so that you must pay me for the secret aspects (the TrueType rendering software). Here's the virus for free, pay me every week for the medicine to aleviate the symptoms.
I realize the news of the lawysuit was probably a hoax, so take this post for what it is... either a "candle" or a "virus".
By definition the original GPL code is available in source. As was obvious from the inital post, one of the possible responses from the company (other than posting their own source or simply ignoring the complaint) was to simply remove any strings and, presumably, any magic numbers or integer "fingerprints".
I'm not saying this is the right or honorable way of using GPL code (I believe the exact opposite), but "hiding" an identifier in openly viewable source is not exactly a fool-proof method of protecting your source code.
Sorry, didn't mean to speak for you. However, think in terms of the the story that was originally posted on/..
IMHO, the only reason IE is "integrated" into Win98 was a transparent attempt destroy a competing product that threatened (even a little bit) MS's market position. Once again, as people more technically profficient than I have mentioned, HTML rendering features, TCP/IP communication features, etc. are all suitable features of an OS. The bloated browser front-end, the inefficient managing of cookies and web page cache, and all the other features of IE, are aspects generally assumed to be in the realm of applications.
If MS claims they can't remove the application features without preserving the OS features and making the OS unbootable, then they are idiots. Since I know that MS engineers are not idiots (I know a couple of people who work there and they are very, very smart), IMHO, the "integration" of IE into Win98 was a marketing/legal decision.
My original argument was that this marketing decision makes it more difficult than it needs to be for me to browse the web using my laptop. Claiming that "that's the way they designed it" as an excuse for any business decision is short-sighted.
Take your argument and apply it to Word. Why isn't a Word obfuscated file format reader/writer built into the OS? Because, as a purchased program without any real competition, MS makes more money selling Word as an application than it would tying the features into the OS. However, by your argument, if MS felt threatened by a competing word-processing application, they could legally bundle Word into Windows 20xx and claim that, for example, the BSOD features (blue screen of death) needs WOFFR (word's obfuscated file format reader) to display error messages. I'm sure a business major could be asked to testify that this was simply Microsoft's freedom to innovate. When the competing word-processor companies complained to the Justice Department, your position is that MS "designed it that way" and too bad, so sad, sell your stock while you have a chance.
Finally, because there is a de facto monopoly in OS by Microsoft (at least in the coporate desktop arena) I am not free to use another OS and remain employed at my current job.
Nevertheless, I have never been a knee-jerk Microsoft-basher and I find NT to be suitable for the work I do. I like to have a standard platform to play StarCraft so I keep 98 on my desktop at home. However, I think most people who have a programming background and who don't have a direct financial stake in MS believe that their arguments during the trial regarding the inviolate integration of IE were ingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.
I wish I had the satiristic talents to continue with this thread. Oh well. I guess I'll leave it to better minds than mine...
p.s. Only a hardcore reader would know who Phillip K. Dick was and that his short story (novella?) was the basis for Bladerunner. I'll bet that Trevor even knows the name of the story...)
How can it ever match what I imagined when I read the books the first time?
I also know that it's going to be disconcerting when I'm watching the movie and they pronounce names and places differently than the way I pronounced them in my head.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I'm going to see it when it first comes out, and I'll try not to bring too many preconcieved notions of how I would have done it...
Better entertainment than reading AC flame wars on/.?
Besides, you need something to keep the conscious brain occupied while the subconscious figures out what algorythim to use...
Wasn't there an article posted here a couple of weeks ago that said programmers only spend 4 hours a year (or something like that;) actually writing code. We need do something with the rest of our time...
Here is my list of the games that have consumed the most hours, days, and weeks of my life. All of them were good games. The one thing most had in common, they all had a "just one more level/planet/room/battle" mindset.
15. Tetris (we had it installed at my work-study job in college)
14. Total Annihilation
13. Outlaws (a lucasarts western FPS)
12. Zork (and a few other infocom games)
11. Privateer and Privateer II (really cool Wing Commander spin offs but I still haven't finished either...)
10. StarCraft (thanks to battle.net)
9. WarCraft (especially once we got two computers connected on a null-modem)
8. Diablo
7. Baldur's Gate
6. SimCity and SC II (days)
5. XCOM (days)
4. Master of Magic (days/weeks)
3. Master of Orion (days/weeks)
2. Civilization and Civ II (weeks, months?)
1. NetHack,Rogue,zangband,moria, etc. etc.
Probably spent more time on these than all the others combined. Can download quickly onto any computer, can play at work without anybody noticing, always interesting, and very, very hard to break away from...
First, thanks I've got an ugly, slow connection today.
Second, there seems to be a distinct lack of sports and driving games from the list.
They're not generally my cup of tea (in fact, the list is a pretty good match to my tastes; minus Deer Hunter, Myst, and FPS), but I have a friend that has timed the upgrading of his computer to match the yearly installments of NBA Live 95,96,97,98,99,200 etc. and the bi-annual installments of Need for Speed. I'm sure his list of influential games would either include these two games or their conceptual predecessors...
Also, the various boxing/martial arts games (Street Fighter, Tekken(?) etc.) seem to be missing. What was the first game in this genre and wouldn't that be a "most influential"?
The point is, why should I, if I want to use Opera, need to have the 111mb (or whatever the latest number is) of Internet Explorer on my HD. IMO, remove the entire thing, leaving the html dll to view the help files, and free up enough space so that I can install a couple of games (or whatever.)
Your point seems to be, everyone always has more HD space than they need so it doesn't matter what gets installed and forgotten. In my experience, I want the HD space I've purchased (at a premium cost for a laptop) to be used for stuff I want/need.
I read your comment on a laptop with limited hard drive space. I'm running Opera 4 which has a tiny executable and runs very fast on this computer. Maybe, just maybe, my criteria is different than your criteria on what I want from an internet browser. Shouldn't I be able to purchase my bundled software based on my, not Microsoft's, requirements?
I'm not a lawyer (wow, what a surprise, he sounded so knowledgable;) but isn't part of the problem the fact that only some types of prior art are valid.
If I understood the article, going up to a judge and saying, "look, lines 12038 through 14238 of my source code were written before this patent was applied for, it does the same as the patent, it was written prior to the patent, and I shouldn't have to pay license fees."
The opposing lawyer (1) responds, "Source code isn't real "literature" therefore its not prior art."
Opposing lawyer (2) responds, "You used a AVL tree and my client uses a linked-list. It's not prior art."
Opposing lawyer (3) reponds, "We have $234,923,482,348,234 in our "war chest" to defend our patent and you have $34.20."
Opposing lawyer (4) reponds, "Judge, we would like to file a counter-suit against the plaintif since he is obviously not a lawyer and doesn't know how to get out of this."
Opposing lawyer (5) reponds, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
Opposing lawyer (6) reponds, "Our client, MegaTeleSoftBusinessMart Inc. was raised in a broken home and deserves to keep this patent."
Opposing lawyer (7) responds, "Judge, when we were at Yale Law School together didn't we have a great time?"
This article is a great reference for those of us who know enough about software patent law to be pissed, but not enought to know exactly why we're pissed.
I remember thinking how the BountyQuest web site seemed like a good idea. It's obvious now, however, that the problem is in the very structure of the patent system as it applies to software.
If I'm not mistaken, all of the comments I've seen on/. about the "invalidity" of One-Click or any of the other "I can't believe they allowed that patent!" stories that periodically appear here are irrelevant. Someone may have used the technology before, or written software that exploited the algorythim before the patent was granted, but because it didn't appear in "literature" it doesn't invalidate the subsequent patent.
This is a problem. Consider the worst case. There are probably thousands of algorythims and ideas on an average Linux distribution that have been used for years but have never appeared in formal literature. Given the wrong judge what could happen?
Anyway, on an unrelated note, I realize it's easy to spend other people's money, but it would be nice if some rich, self-made software baron were to set up a foundation to defend the small companies and individual programmers from bogus patent infringement suits. If it wasn't easier and cheaper to simply roll over when a lawyer shows up with a baseless patent-infringement suit, there would probably be less bogus patents around. I fear this will be even more important due to the incomming administration in the U.S.. I worry that B.T. (ruling the internet with their hyperlink patent), Microsoft, IBM, and Rambus;) are going to be the only software companies left in four years.
My dad bought an Amiga 500 to replace our Timex Sinclair 1000. As you can imaging, we were pretty impressed...
1. No arbitrary key combinations
2. AmigaBasic
3. Color
4. A floppy disk
5. A second floppy disk
6. Fred Fish Shareware!!! (I hope I'm remembering the name correctly)
Absolutely true. Its been mentioned around here many times that a "good programmer" is good irrespective of the languages he or she knows. However, even good programmers need to get past a HR person who has a sheet of paper on their desk that says "2 years PPL/ASD/SUA* programming in a KDF/HFG/SAFD* environment".
Subconsciously, I think a lot of people are hoping that their advocacy of a particular language/platform/etc. will boost the odds that the next cool job offer will have the the check boxes that match his or her skills.
The other motivator may be fear. If you DON'T advocate your favorite language, maybe in three years it will be as popular as writing TSRs for DOS**.
Finally, no one likes being on the "losing side". In depth knowlege of a defunct technology or language is the programmer equivalent of rooting for the Washington Wizards***. Unlike professional basketball, however, maybe rooting for the language may actually keep it in the public consciousness. And, if it's in the public consciousness, maybe your skills are still in demand.
I'm not defending mindless advocacy, but I do believe it involves more that the black and white statement "use the right tool for the job."
* random acronyms used for artistic effect:)
** Who knows? There were probably a few people who were happy they knew COBAL right around 1999.
I think the most important quote in the article was right at the beginning:
"Maybe we have a language problem," he says. "Instead of talking about software, we should be talking about different entities. Just like we have language, but then we also have poetry, drama and rhetoric. Maybe what we really need is just different categories of software that are handled in such utterly different ways that we don't even use the same word to describe them."
I've been looking into various evening/part-time, professional master's degree programs and my biggest problem when I check out the catalogs is what classes to limit myself to. I could focus on network programming, web-based programming, database programming, higher-level "software engineering", AI, GUI, etc., etc., etc.. Of course there are overlaps, but I guess the main point is: I wouldn't ask my cardiologist to diagnose this fungus on my feet.
I don't have an answer, but a lot of very different tasks are thrown in under the amorphous term software development.
What? A hospital doesn't try to run every television in the building off of their emergency generators, do they? (Maybe they do, but it doesn't seem very bright) In other words, stay on the grid, put your essentials on a home system, (maybe your essentials are a TV, fridge, and electric blanket, each person has the freedom to define essential)
We need to think about electricity differently. Let the big power plants do what they do best; generate lots of power, cheaply. Let the home system do what it does best: give you piece of mind and an assured minimum service in the event of a blackout, brownout, or, even, super high electric rates.
One easy step. Get batteries to follow Moore's Law. Double the capacity/half the size every 18 months.
On a serious note, if someone were able to develop batteries without all the drawbacks currently in batteries they would be very, very wealthy. A lot of the problem, from what I've read, is not capacity but dealing with the fluctuation of demand. If you could store the excess power generated at 3 AM and add it to what is needed at 10 AM I think a lot of the problem would be alieviated. Batteries are currently too heavy, bulky, expensive, inefficent, etc. There is some research into flywheels, maybe this will be the solution. Unfortunatly, it doesn't look like flywheels are going to be the solution that allows me to run my laptop for more that 3 hours.
Unfortunatly, if a super-battery were developed the power and oil companies would just kill the inventer and hide the research just like they did with the car that ran on water;)
Anyone remember the Shipstones from Friday by Heinlein (i think). That is what the world needs...
Part of the problem is not enough deregulation in the one segment that can actually make a difference: i.e. distributed power generation.
Fuel cells are being developed (some are already in service, I think), there was a great Wired article about the potential for flywheels in energy storage, solar and wind have drawbacks but they can be appropriate for many people in the right climate/terrain, even micro-hydro can be an answer for some people.
How does local government look at this; large companies get tax breaks, zoning variances, and a garunteed market; micro generation gets buried in red tape and can't sell the excess that they generate.
Obviously, not everyone is capable/willing to run thier own powerplant. But many of us would like the opportunity... if for no other reason than gloating rights the next time a brown-out hits.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but guess how far deregulation efforts are going to get in other areas if the news starts playing "It's a dark and cold Christmas for Betty and Goober" stories...
A side question, can Betty and Goober invest in their own power generation (solar, wind, etc.) without being red taped out of existance? Will the utilities buy back their excess power? Will the utilities bay the going rate?
I think micro-generation is the answer, but only if over-regulation doesn't kill it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not too much money if you lost your job (and 5000 MS stock options) in 1987 due to discrimination...
</DEVILADVOCATE>
I'm not saying this happened, but I sure know I would be pissed...
I recently moved from Seattle to Washington D.C. and the difference in racial makeup as a whole takes a while to get used to (see below). Whatever the statitistics on programmers' racial makeup might be, the additional statistic that might come into play is the local population as a whole.
Actaully, I just ran to the Census web site and got the following numbers;
Population of Washington State (esitmate): 5756361
Black Population of the state (esitmate): 203853
Percentage: 3.5%
It seems that blacks at Microsoft are slightly "under-represented", but there are so many other variables (education, age, etc., etc.)...
* I would kill for a decent bowl of Pho, an inexpensive vegetarian Phad Thai, or a good sushi restaraunt that doesn't cost an arm and a leg... If they build another goddamned steak house in D.C. I think my colon's gonna blow.
Even now, I would really like to have a little bit of control over my Dish TV? Why can't I choose the channel's I pay my $20 a month for? I havn't looked at a single one of the five or six shopping channels, the six or seven sports channels, or the four religious channels.
On the other hand, I'd like to get the tech channel (what a geek), BBC America, and MTV2. I'd be willing to trade...
Oh well, corportations like to talk about the free market, but they certainly wouldn't like it if it got here. Imagine a world where channels had to compete for the viewer's dollar? HBO does it to a certain extent and that seems to be why they produce some cutting edge material.
Don't patents only last nine years (seven, eleven, an odd number, I thought). At worst, only patent #3 would apply, right. Or can a company who's patent has expired go after someone for past patent violations.
I think there is something to be learned from the metaphore that Thomas Jefferson used to describe the movement of ideas. The receipient of an idea "receives light without darkening mine." This is undoubtably a positive image but it seems somewhat outdated in the current climate of patent/copyright wars.
This is important, because it seems to me that a more common metaphore in modern times is that of a "meme" which is likened to a virus. Generally, the image is much more negative.
Open source, in its most general sense, seems to be born in the first metaphore; I program to enlighten myself and, by doing so, enlighten others.
Proprietary software, I'm going to pick on Apple in this case, wants to work like the second idea; I present the open aspects (TrueType) so that you must pay me for the secret aspects (the TrueType rendering software). Here's the virus for free, pay me every week for the medicine to aleviate the symptoms.
I realize the news of the lawysuit was probably a hoax, so take this post for what it is... either a "candle" or a "virus".
By definition the original GPL code is available in source. As was obvious from the inital post, one of the possible responses from the company (other than posting their own source or simply ignoring the complaint) was to simply remove any strings and, presumably, any magic numbers or integer "fingerprints".
I'm not saying this is the right or honorable way of using GPL code (I believe the exact opposite), but "hiding" an identifier in openly viewable source is not exactly a fool-proof method of protecting your source code.
Sorry, didn't mean to speak for you. However, think in terms of the the story that was originally posted on /..
IMHO, the only reason IE is "integrated" into Win98 was a transparent attempt destroy a competing product that threatened (even a little bit) MS's market position. Once again, as people more technically profficient than I have mentioned, HTML rendering features, TCP/IP communication features, etc. are all suitable features of an OS. The bloated browser front-end, the inefficient managing of cookies and web page cache, and all the other features of IE, are aspects generally assumed to be in the realm of applications.
If MS claims they can't remove the application features without preserving the OS features and making the OS unbootable, then they are idiots. Since I know that MS engineers are not idiots (I know a couple of people who work there and they are very, very smart), IMHO, the "integration" of IE into Win98 was a marketing/legal decision.
My original argument was that this marketing decision makes it more difficult than it needs to be for me to browse the web using my laptop. Claiming that "that's the way they designed it" as an excuse for any business decision is short-sighted.
Take your argument and apply it to Word. Why isn't a Word obfuscated file format reader/writer built into the OS? Because, as a purchased program without any real competition, MS makes more money selling Word as an application than it would tying the features into the OS. However, by your argument, if MS felt threatened by a competing word-processing application, they could legally bundle Word into Windows 20xx and claim that, for example, the BSOD features (blue screen of death) needs WOFFR (word's obfuscated file format reader) to display error messages. I'm sure a business major could be asked to testify that this was simply Microsoft's freedom to innovate. When the competing word-processor companies complained to the Justice Department, your position is that MS "designed it that way" and too bad, so sad, sell your stock while you have a chance.
Finally, because there is a de facto monopoly in OS by Microsoft (at least in the coporate desktop arena) I am not free to use another OS and remain employed at my current job.
Nevertheless, I have never been a knee-jerk Microsoft-basher and I find NT to be suitable for the work I do. I like to have a standard platform to play StarCraft so I keep 98 on my desktop at home. However, I think most people who have a programming background and who don't have a direct financial stake in MS believe that their arguments during the trial regarding the inviolate integration of IE were ingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.
Respectfully yours...
I wish I had the satiristic talents to continue with this thread. Oh well. I guess I'll leave it to better minds than mine...
p.s. Only a hardcore reader would know who Phillip K. Dick was and that his short story (novella?) was the basis for Bladerunner. I'll bet that Trevor even knows the name of the story...)
How can it ever match what I imagined when I read the books the first time?
I also know that it's going to be disconcerting when I'm watching the movie and they pronounce names and places differently than the way I pronounced them in my head.
Nevertheless, I'm sure I'm going to see it when it first comes out, and I'll try not to bring too many preconcieved notions of how I would have done it...
Better entertainment than reading AC flame wars on /.?
Besides, you need something to keep the conscious brain occupied while the subconscious figures out what algorythim to use...
Wasn't there an article posted here a couple of weeks ago that said programmers only spend 4 hours a year (or something like that ;) actually writing code. We need do something with the rest of our time...
Here is my list of the games that have consumed the most hours, days, and weeks of my life. All of them were good games. The one thing most had in common, they all had a "just one more level/planet/room/battle" mindset.
15. Tetris (we had it installed at my work-study job in college)
14. Total Annihilation
13. Outlaws (a lucasarts western FPS)
12. Zork (and a few other infocom games)
11. Privateer and Privateer II (really cool Wing Commander spin offs but I still haven't finished either...)
10. StarCraft (thanks to battle.net)
9. WarCraft (especially once we got two computers connected on a null-modem)
8. Diablo
7. Baldur's Gate
6. SimCity and SC II (days)
5. XCOM (days)
4. Master of Magic (days/weeks)
3. Master of Orion (days/weeks)
2. Civilization and Civ II (weeks, months?)
1. NetHack,Rogue,zangband,moria, etc. etc.
Probably spent more time on these than all the others combined. Can download quickly onto any computer, can play at work without anybody noticing, always interesting, and very, very hard to break away from...
First, thanks I've got an ugly, slow connection today.
Second, there seems to be a distinct lack of sports and driving games from the list.
They're not generally my cup of tea (in fact, the list is a pretty good match to my tastes; minus Deer Hunter, Myst, and FPS), but I have a friend that has timed the upgrading of his computer to match the yearly installments of NBA Live 95,96,97,98,99,200 etc. and the bi-annual installments of Need for Speed. I'm sure his list of influential games would either include these two games or their conceptual predecessors...
Also, the various boxing/martial arts games (Street Fighter, Tekken(?) etc.) seem to be missing. What was the first game in this genre and wouldn't that be a "most influential"?
The point is, why should I, if I want to use Opera, need to have the 111mb (or whatever the latest number is) of Internet Explorer on my HD. IMO, remove the entire thing, leaving the html dll to view the help files, and free up enough space so that I can install a couple of games (or whatever.)
Your point seems to be, everyone always has more HD space than they need so it doesn't matter what gets installed and forgotten. In my experience, I want the HD space I've purchased (at a premium cost for a laptop) to be used for stuff I want/need.
I read your comment on a laptop with limited hard drive space. I'm running Opera 4 which has a tiny executable and runs very fast on this computer. Maybe, just maybe, my criteria is different than your criteria on what I want from an internet browser. Shouldn't I be able to purchase my bundled software based on my, not Microsoft's, requirements?
Yes, but this is on a computer which is totally different than on paper. Our founding father didn't have computers, even a judge knows that. Jeez...
Actually, I just had an Idea... What if you put a spreadsheet on the Internet? What a novel, non-obvious, and useful idea! I'm going to be rich!
I'm not a lawyer (wow, what a surprise, he sounded so knowledgable ;) but isn't part of the problem the fact that only some types of prior art are valid.
If I understood the article, going up to a judge and saying, "look, lines 12038 through 14238 of my source code were written before this patent was applied for, it does the same as the patent, it was written prior to the patent, and I shouldn't have to pay license fees."
The opposing lawyer (1) responds, "Source code isn't real "literature" therefore its not prior art."
Opposing lawyer (2) responds, "You used a AVL tree and my client uses a linked-list. It's not prior art."
Opposing lawyer (3) reponds, "We have $234,923,482,348,234 in our "war chest" to defend our patent and you have $34.20."
Opposing lawyer (4) reponds, "Judge, we would like to file a counter-suit against the plaintif since he is obviously not a lawyer and doesn't know how to get out of this."
Opposing lawyer (5) reponds, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."
Opposing lawyer (6) reponds, "Our client, MegaTeleSoftBusinessMart Inc. was raised in a broken home and deserves to keep this patent."
Opposing lawyer (7) responds, "Judge, when we were at Yale Law School together didn't we have a great time?"
Opposing lawyer (8) responds, "Ha Ha!"
Look... Quit complaining. When you've bought your own congressperson I'm sure he or she will make qualified decisions that you agree with.
Start saving now and maybe you can afford a 2002 model.
This article is a great reference for those of us who know enough about software patent law to be pissed, but not enought to know exactly why we're pissed.
I remember thinking how the BountyQuest web site seemed like a good idea. It's obvious now, however, that the problem is in the very structure of the patent system as it applies to software.
If I'm not mistaken, all of the comments I've seen on /. about the "invalidity" of One-Click or any of the other "I can't believe they allowed that patent!" stories that periodically appear here are irrelevant. Someone may have used the technology before, or written software that exploited the algorythim before the patent was granted, but because it didn't appear in "literature" it doesn't invalidate the subsequent patent.
This is a problem. Consider the worst case. There are probably thousands of algorythims and ideas on an average Linux distribution that have been used for years but have never appeared in formal literature. Given the wrong judge what could happen?
Anyway, on an unrelated note, I realize it's easy to spend other people's money, but it would be nice if some rich, self-made software baron were to set up a foundation to defend the small companies and individual programmers from bogus patent infringement suits. If it wasn't easier and cheaper to simply roll over when a lawyer shows up with a baseless patent-infringement suit, there would probably be less bogus patents around. I fear this will be even more important due to the incomming administration in the U.S.. I worry that B.T. (ruling the internet with their hyperlink patent), Microsoft, IBM, and Rambus ;) are going to be the only software companies left in four years.
My dad bought an Amiga 500 to replace our Timex Sinclair 1000. As you can imaging, we were pretty impressed...
1. No arbitrary key combinations
2. AmigaBasic
3. Color
4. A floppy disk
5. A second floppy disk
6. Fred Fish Shareware!!! (I hope I'm remembering the name correctly)
Absolutely true. Its been mentioned around here many times that a "good programmer" is good irrespective of the languages he or she knows. However, even good programmers need to get past a HR person who has a sheet of paper on their desk that says "2 years PPL/ASD/SUA* programming in a KDF/HFG/SAFD* environment".
Subconsciously, I think a lot of people are hoping that their advocacy of a particular language/platform/etc. will boost the odds that the next cool job offer will have the the check boxes that match his or her skills.
The other motivator may be fear. If you DON'T advocate your favorite language, maybe in three years it will be as popular as writing TSRs for DOS**.
Finally, no one likes being on the "losing side". In depth knowlege of a defunct technology or language is the programmer equivalent of rooting for the Washington Wizards***. Unlike professional basketball, however, maybe rooting for the language may actually keep it in the public consciousness. And, if it's in the public consciousness, maybe your skills are still in demand.
I'm not defending mindless advocacy, but I do believe it involves more that the black and white statement "use the right tool for the job."
* random acronyms used for artistic effect :)
** Who knows? There were probably a few people who were happy they knew COBAL right around 1999.
*** Come on Jordan! Whip those guys into shape!
I think the most important quote in the article was right at the beginning:
"Maybe we have a language problem," he says. "Instead of talking about software, we should be talking about different entities. Just like we have language, but then we also have poetry, drama and rhetoric. Maybe what we really need is just different categories of software that are handled in such utterly different ways that we don't even use the same word to describe them."
I've been looking into various evening/part-time, professional master's degree programs and my biggest problem when I check out the catalogs is what classes to limit myself to. I could focus on network programming, web-based programming, database programming, higher-level "software engineering", AI, GUI, etc., etc., etc.. Of course there are overlaps, but I guess the main point is: I wouldn't ask my cardiologist to diagnose this fungus on my feet.
I don't have an answer, but a lot of very different tasks are thrown in under the amorphous term software development.
What? A hospital doesn't try to run every television in the building off of their emergency generators, do they? (Maybe they do, but it doesn't seem very bright) In other words, stay on the grid, put your essentials on a home system, (maybe your essentials are a TV, fridge, and electric blanket, each person has the freedom to define essential)
We need to think about electricity differently. Let the big power plants do what they do best; generate lots of power, cheaply. Let the home system do what it does best: give you piece of mind and an assured minimum service in the event of a blackout, brownout, or, even, super high electric rates.
One easy step. Get batteries to follow Moore's Law. Double the capacity/half the size every 18 months.
On a serious note, if someone were able to develop batteries without all the drawbacks currently in batteries they would be very, very wealthy. A lot of the problem, from what I've read, is not capacity but dealing with the fluctuation of demand. If you could store the excess power generated at 3 AM and add it to what is needed at 10 AM I think a lot of the problem would be alieviated. Batteries are currently too heavy, bulky, expensive, inefficent, etc. There is some research into flywheels, maybe this will be the solution. Unfortunatly, it doesn't look like flywheels are going to be the solution that allows me to run my laptop for more that 3 hours.
Unfortunatly, if a super-battery were developed the power and oil companies would just kill the inventer and hide the research just like they did with the car that ran on water ;)
Anyone remember the Shipstones from Friday by Heinlein (i think). That is what the world needs...
Part of the problem is not enough deregulation in the one segment that can actually make a difference: i.e. distributed power generation.
Fuel cells are being developed (some are already in service, I think), there was a great Wired article about the potential for flywheels in energy storage, solar and wind have drawbacks but they can be appropriate for many people in the right climate/terrain, even micro-hydro can be an answer for some people.
How does local government look at this; large companies get tax breaks, zoning variances, and a garunteed market; micro generation gets buried in red tape and can't sell the excess that they generate.
Obviously, not everyone is capable/willing to run thier own powerplant. But many of us would like the opportunity... if for no other reason than gloating rights the next time a brown-out hits.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but guess how far deregulation efforts are going to get in other areas if the news starts playing "It's a dark and cold Christmas for Betty and Goober" stories...
A side question, can Betty and Goober invest in their own power generation (solar, wind, etc.) without being red taped out of existance? Will the utilities buy back their excess power? Will the utilities bay the going rate?
I think micro-generation is the answer, but only if over-regulation doesn't kill it.