I will agree with this. Most managers are of the "firefighter" variety in my experience. They only work hard if things have gone to hell, and at that point it's too late.
In the end, someone has to take responsibility for a product; the managers, the architects, the lead developers, the junior trying-to-get-ahead developer... someone. If the manager isn't going to, when you outsource your coding you can be reasonably assured that it's in "ghost ride" mode.
Perhaps some day mankind will feel the same about things we call science today. Dont make the mistake of thinking what you believe in has to be correct. This is exactly the same metacognitive bias that makes the religious go nutty.
As much as seeing and hearing, etc, is a form of awareness -- it is also a form of ignorance. Senses leave out more than they take in (visible light, audible range, etc). I think all human thinking is necessarily flawed as it is based on our perceptions.
Religions are full of testimonials -- how different are these testimonials really from a high-end technical paper that reads like Chinese to the layman? You are blown away by the geniuses doing the great science of the day, perhaps if you were a little less intelligent you would be blown away by the preacher at the local church.
Their proof is not scientific, but ask your nearest Christian and they will give you a laundry list of what the consider proof of god.
There are only two classes for human conceptions, the analytic and the synthetic. Analytic ideas are as they are by definition (like math), and synthetic ideas are those which are based on observation, perception and evidence.
Everything else is simply a matter of degree.
Putting science on a pedestal this way proves nothing. It is a false mode of thinking designed by people who find religious thought threatening. Thoughts are thoughts, plausibility is plausibility, tautologies are tautologies. Anything else is the product of the human ego and insecurity in one form or another.
Please note that he doesn't actually give a list of what he can't do with.NET.
I think the lesson to learn here is that writing blog posts like this when you are looking for programmers is a rookie mistake. I suppose thats why they call it a start up.
Of course you don't want to teach algorithm development on a high level language that already has all of the algorithms (that these teachers are capable of teaching) built in. What would be the point of that? And I think when they said anti-parallel and anti-modular, they meant in the attitudes it instills in students.
--- start off topic rant ----
For the record, these degree programs provide you with skills tuned for different jobs. The CompSci folks are algorithm based - down in the details making things fast and efficient. The SoftEng folks are architecture/technology based - up at the top making things that WORK and that people can actually use; you know - products. They are COOPERATIVE jobs with a very large overlap.
Any CompSci should be grateful to have talented SoftEng helping them provide a cogent, fast, and polished view of their algorithmic efforts; your work means nothing if it never gets in the hands of the users or if it's spoiled by a bad implementation.
Any SoftEng should be pleased to have hard working CompSci making fast algorithms to help them to create their next product. You couldn't make these fancy architectures of you didn't have well thought out underpinnings backing you up.
I see some piss-poor attitudes on this thread and some of you snobs and dorks are in for a rude awakening.
Well if the education industry is going to oversell technology jobs, the least they can do is provide the students with some skills that are likely to be useful to them once they have to start paying off their loans.
1) Since they have a population 4 times that of America that they would have 4 times as many students that are at least somewhat exceptional? 2) If they are so exceptional; why do they come here to be educated and to steal trade secrets/ideas? 3) If you travel halfway around the world to a country as different from your own as America is from China - I think most of those people would have to be pretty serious about education to start with, you dont send the losers around the world for education.
He puts himself in the republican debates saying things that are incomprehensible to the average republican, puts himself up for derision and mockery, says things that will almost certainly not get him elected because he thinks they are right and believes in the constitution. More of the same? Nonsense.
Your idea of the gold standard being a "major" cause of the depression is silly, the economy was horrible on 1000 different levels from stock market activities to trade issues to poor wages being earned by large segments of the population. To say that Ron Paul is suggesting the gold standard cause he holds gold... talk about drinking kool-aid. Im sure many people who despise the gold standard hold plenty of gold in their portfolios. The fact is at the end of the day the money system has major problems and Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing them at all, even if you dont like his solution to the problem. The sad truth is that 99.9999% of people dont care that we carry an insurmountable deficit and live our lives on credit that can be called in at any time - talk about a depression, we are setting ourselves up for one as we speak. Thank god theres one person running for office that isnt afraid to talk about it.
Look at the progress made by the open-source community, Microsoft is releasing source code for big projects - even if it is under undesirable licenses. The concept of open source has permeated Microsoft to the point where they feel they need to open up some to compete - a big victory, even if not complete, for the OSS community in general - IMHO: nice work guys/girls, keep it up.
1) He never said he installed it, actually he probably didn't and who knows where he got it - hes an eBay seller not an engineer from what I gather. For all we know the product was still shrink wrapped (not that I think it changes much if it wasn't).
2) If they thought he copied and then sold the same product he was still using it would be a software piracy case and not a eBay DCMA take-down case.
Brutish is just a silly over-simplification. Look at the trend in new languages; python, ruby, C#(and.net etc), Java - hell even C++... see a pattern here - simplification of difficult concepts packaged neatly for reuse - a much desired goal in good programming in any language. Visual Basic is implemented in terms of the CLR nowadays, is fully object oriented, and is a pretty powerful language. Unfortunately these simplifications cant do it all for you and since they are more accessible they allow less talented people to actually produce a marginally useful program which sometimes will escape into production use. The implementations of the data structures, and methods that work on them, in these languages is technically beyond what 99% of developers can afford to implement on their own in C or assembler in both money and manpower - 9/10 times their use will make you a better program if used correctly in comparison to a "new" (aka probably untested, probably unoriginal, probably buggy) solution. BTW, have you ever written a program in Javascript - its pretty f-ing terrible.
Slashdot Mirror
I will agree with this. Most managers are of the "firefighter" variety in my experience. They only work hard if things have gone to hell, and at that point it's too late.
In the end, someone has to take responsibility for a product; the managers, the architects, the lead developers, the junior trying-to-get-ahead developer... someone. If the manager isn't going to, when you outsource your coding you can be reasonably assured that it's in "ghost ride" mode.
I'm sure there are geek teenagers in my neighborhood that would take 10$/hr to write code for my professional software product.
If I do, is the story really that they are bad coders? No, the story is that I don't know how to run a business and I have shit for brains.
If you executives/management can't put talent in the seats for the positions that count you will fail. End of story.
Unfortunately those proofs were not evolutionary but crossbreeding chuckles.
Cancer is a mutation, having cancer does not change your species.
The original person i replied too was implying that experiments that prove mutation are experiments proving evolution. They aren't.
He didn't claim it was proof of "mutation", he claimed it was proof of "evolution".
They are not synonyms. One is a small piece of the other.
Mutation is part of evolution, evolution itself is a much larger process.
Just like tires are part of a car, but a tire isnt a car. Clear yet?
This is mutation, not evolution. Evolution results in new species, not mutation within a species.
Perhaps this is a large part of the problem, even evolutions supporters dont know what it is.
That's mutation which is only a small part of evolution. There are no experiments that make new species, sorry bud.
Perhaps some day mankind will feel the same about things we call science today. Dont make the mistake of thinking what you believe in has to be correct. This is exactly the same metacognitive bias that makes the religious go nutty.
Sure, Im not defending religion.
As much as seeing and hearing, etc, is a form of awareness -- it is also a form of ignorance. Senses leave out more than they take in (visible light, audible range, etc). I think all human thinking is necessarily flawed as it is based on our perceptions.
I would accept that as a valid question, not an important one in terms of being alive day to day, but valid.
Religions are full of testimonials -- how different are these testimonials really from a high-end technical paper that reads like Chinese to the layman? You are blown away by the geniuses doing the great science of the day, perhaps if you were a little less intelligent you would be blown away by the preacher at the local church.
Their proof is not scientific, but ask your nearest Christian and they will give you a laundry list of what the consider proof of god.
There are only two classes for human conceptions, the analytic and the synthetic. Analytic ideas are as they are by definition (like math), and synthetic ideas are those which are based on observation, perception and evidence.
Everything else is simply a matter of degree.
Putting science on a pedestal this way proves nothing. It is a false mode of thinking designed by people who find religious thought threatening. Thoughts are thoughts, plausibility is plausibility, tautologies are tautologies. Anything else is the product of the human ego and insecurity in one form or another.
Please note that he doesn't actually give a list of what he can't do with .NET.
I think the lesson to learn here is that writing blog posts like this when you are looking for programmers is a rookie mistake. I suppose thats why they call it a start up.
Of course you don't want to teach algorithm development on a high level language that already has all of the algorithms (that these teachers are capable of teaching) built in. What would be the point of that? And I think when they said anti-parallel and anti-modular, they meant in the attitudes it instills in students.
--- start off topic rant ----
For the record, these degree programs provide you with skills tuned for different jobs. The CompSci folks are algorithm based - down in the details making things fast and efficient. The SoftEng folks are architecture/technology based - up at the top making things that WORK and that people can actually use; you know - products. They are COOPERATIVE jobs with a very large overlap.
Any CompSci should be grateful to have talented SoftEng helping them provide a cogent, fast, and polished view of their algorithmic efforts; your work means nothing if it never gets in the hands of the users or if it's spoiled by a bad implementation.
Any SoftEng should be pleased to have hard working CompSci making fast algorithms to help them to create their next product. You couldn't make these fancy architectures of you didn't have well thought out underpinnings backing you up.
I see some piss-poor attitudes on this thread and some of you snobs and dorks are in for a rude awakening.
Because when the CS people realize they aren't going to invent anything novel they need a job. Hello, software engineering.
This is quite the bourgeois attitude. Unfortunately it's not reality for most people in this world - you should get out more often.
Well your response is certainly very "Computer Scientist"; it works great for that 1% it applies to and sounds great on paper.
Well if the education industry is going to oversell technology jobs, the least they can do is provide the students with some skills that are likely to be useful to them once they have to start paying off their loans.
Some points to ponder..
1) Since they have a population 4 times that of America that they would have 4 times as many students that are at least somewhat exceptional?
2) If they are so exceptional; why do they come here to be educated and to steal trade secrets/ideas?
3) If you travel halfway around the world to a country as different from your own as America is from China - I think most of those people would have to be pretty serious about education to start with, you dont send the losers around the world for education.
He puts himself in the republican debates saying things that are incomprehensible to the average republican, puts himself up for derision and mockery, says things that will almost certainly not get him elected because he thinks they are right and believes in the constitution. More of the same? Nonsense.
Your idea of the gold standard being a "major" cause of the depression is silly, the economy was horrible on 1000 different levels from stock market activities to trade issues to poor wages being earned by large segments of the population. To say that Ron Paul is suggesting the gold standard cause he holds gold... talk about drinking kool-aid. Im sure many people who despise the gold standard hold plenty of gold in their portfolios. The fact is at the end of the day the money system has major problems and Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing them at all, even if you dont like his solution to the problem. The sad truth is that 99.9999% of people dont care that we carry an insurmountable deficit and live our lives on credit that can be called in at any time - talk about a depression, we are setting ourselves up for one as we speak. Thank god theres one person running for office that isnt afraid to talk about it.
Look at the progress made by the open-source community, Microsoft is releasing source code for big projects - even if it is under undesirable licenses. The concept of open source has permeated Microsoft to the point where they feel they need to open up some to compete - a big victory, even if not complete, for the OSS community in general - IMHO: nice work guys/girls, keep it up.
1) He never said he installed it, actually he probably didn't and who knows where he got it - hes an eBay seller not an engineer from what I gather. For all we know the product was still shrink wrapped (not that I think it changes much if it wasn't).
2) If they thought he copied and then sold the same product he was still using it would be a software piracy case and not a eBay DCMA take-down case.
Brutish is just a silly over-simplification. Look at the trend in new languages; python, ruby, C#(and .net etc), Java - hell even C++... see a pattern here - simplification of difficult concepts packaged neatly for reuse - a much desired goal in good programming in any language. Visual Basic is implemented in terms of the CLR nowadays, is fully object oriented, and is a pretty powerful language. Unfortunately these simplifications cant do it all for you and since they are more accessible they allow less talented people to actually produce a marginally useful program which sometimes will escape into production use. The implementations of the data structures, and methods that work on them, in these languages is technically beyond what 99% of developers can afford to implement on their own in C or assembler in both money and manpower - 9/10 times their use will make you a better program if used correctly in comparison to a "new" (aka probably untested, probably unoriginal, probably buggy) solution. BTW, have you ever written a program in Javascript - its pretty f-ing terrible.