> Computerworld Magazine, being an IT rag, is concerned about IT, > not computer science or engineering. Thus it worries about product names, > not categories.
That's an interesting point. When I opened the article, I expected it to talk about actual skills. However, as you pointed out, the article wasn't about skills disappearing. It was about products disappearing.
Products change, but if you actually have some kind of skill, you should still be useful.
I can think of some skills that *may* be dying out. However, they were dying out a long time ago.
1) The ability to write complete and correct code *without* running it through a compiler.
2) The ability to write code that is as efficient as possible.
Both of these skills seem to be fading, primarily because the hardware has rendered them less valuable.
The penalty for using the compiler to debug your code isn't as clear as it once was. If you could only use The Computer for one hour every week, you couldn't waste that time finding typos. I'm not sure how much this matters, but my thinking is that people don't look at their code enough. When they were reviewing to find typos, they could also be more likely to find other kinds of errors.
While efficiency may still be valued, improvements in hardware has made it possible for less skilled programmers to get away with ignoring efficiency. "Fast enough" has replaced "as fast as possible". "Small enough" has replaced "as small as possible". How much this matters depends on your point of view. In some areas it is still extremely important, and people working in those areas focus on efficiency. If you weigh the consequences and make a decision to disregard efficiency for some chunk of code, that's no big deal. However, it seems that a large number of programmers just don't understand the system well enough to be able to make an informed choice. They're doing the best they can, because they don't know it could be better. They don't learn, because it is good enough.
However, I'm not nearly old enough to spend this much time talking about the good old days.
I was recently copying some details by hand from a maillog file. I was looking at the screen and not looking at what I was writing. When I looked at my notepad, I noticed that I had written everything in grafiti. I didn't know I was doing it until I looked at the page.
I have to say, I'm one of the people clinging to an old palm.
There's a distinction between the copyright and the license.
If you are the copyright holder, you own the work. It doesn't matter how you license it, you still own it. If the license you use says anyone can do anything, you still own it. You have just decided not to restrict use. However, the decision is yours. That's the reason I can't release Vista under the GPL. I don't hold the copyright, so I can't decide how it is used.
If I ever get around to it, I can release my DEC PPL to PostScript converter under whatever license I choose because I wrote that thing. Not that anyone would care.
Well, the first obvious step is not to permit *any* outgoing or incoming connection that doesn't go through your own proxies. Once you've done that, you have complete control over what hosts the users can or can't connect to. At that point I can think of several ways to easily limit what they can access. Don't permit encrypted connections except to approved hosts. Block connections to hosts that don't have a valid pointer record. Block access to dynamic addresses. At this point it really is just a question of what the institution's policies permit. I personally favor a hardass default of blocking everything except what is specifically permitted, but that might just be because I'm a prick;-)
Don't be so impressed by your skills. Based on your description, IT just wasn't bothering to do their job (or they didn't know how to do it). Either that, or they weren't permitted to do what needed to be done.
> The Plaintiff(the riaa), was found to have no case. > > The defendant was allowed to get the legal costs.
The defendant asked to get legal costs, but the plaintiff said the defendent's costs were unreasonable. The judge ordered the plaintiff to reveal *their* legal costs to see what the plaintiff considers reasonable.
> The misconception that the brain is full of little conductors, and that its operation is just > like a computer, with electrical voltages and organic logic gates giving rise to "thoughts" is > dear to the common mind. This misconception is responsible for the glamour exercised by one of > the great follies of the age: the notion that we are in an essential and important way like > computers, and that computers could be made to be--in some deeply significant way--like us.
You seem to be under the impression that a computer is something built out of transistors. diodes, resistors, wire, and other electronic components. Sure, if you reduce a computer to the narrowest possible definition, you could say that the human brain is not a computer, but I don't think that would be valid.
> Despite all the medical and technical advances, have we really made life better?
In my opinion: Yes. Not perfect, but definitely better. Picking just one example, Antibiotics have made life better. Very few people have to die a horrible death or lose a limb because they got a cut. We still have more to learn, but we're doing it. Most important: the process continues.
How the world has changed. When I was a kid, I had to go to my father's machine shop (the family business) and look at the calendars in the shop or the magazines in the bathroom. Now all my children have to do is get past the fact that their parents are watching TV behind them while they sit at the computer.
> The only way to guarantee that your child won't copycat something - say, > get into a car with a stranger because he might take you to the beach - > is to make sure your child never sees it in the first place.
Wait! I came up with another one. How about: keeping your children under adult supervision!
I've got three kids. Oldest is 8 years old, youngest will be 4 in April. This may come as quite a shock, but all three kids have never been unsupervised in their lives! I know it is amazing, but it is true. That's how my mom did it. I'm sure my life would be easier if I would just trust the TV to take care of them, but I feel like I might have an obligation to raise my children myself.
Obviously the level of supervision required for the 8 year old differs significantly from that required for the 3 year old, but the concept is the same. You don't have to stand over them watching every thing they do. However, if a three year old can grab the keys and take the car for a spin, you aren't doing your job.
I think it works out well. So far none of them have taken off in the family car.
Other things my kids haven't managed to do:
cut themselves with sharp knives,
burn themselves on the stove top,
cut arms or legs off with power tools,
electrocute themselves,
drown in the bathtub,...
Actually, the list just goes on and on. Those are all things they could easily do if they didn't have someone watching them.
The women who work in yarn and fabric stores are some of the most hateful priggish bigoted limiting sexist people you'll ever meet.
Just kidding. However, I'm always suprised by some of the things they say when I'm in the fabric store. If they were men working in Home Depot and made similar comments to women shopping there, they could get themselves fired.
When the FBI comes knocking on the door, you can barricade yourself in and hold them off for a while, but they'll turn the power off & get in eventually.
At times like these, it's nice to know you can still destroy the evidence even after they cut power to the building.
doom wrote: > You know, sometimes it seems like folks like myself with hipster-intellectual > pretensions ought to be demanding a kick-back from the real estate industry. If > they want our help making neighborhoods fashionable enough for the yups to move > into, we really deserve something for it.
Easy. When you move into some broken down neighborhood slum, buy some land. When the neighborhood becomes fashionable enough for the yups to move in, sell the land for massive profit. There's your kick-back.
She didn't support Bush's wiretapping,
therefore she is supporting the terrorists,
therefore she is a possible target of the wiretapping,
therefore she had a conflict of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
> Computerworld Magazine, being an IT rag, is concerned about IT,
> not computer science or engineering. Thus it worries about product names,
> not categories.
That's an interesting point. When I opened the article, I expected it to talk about actual skills. However, as you pointed out, the article wasn't about skills disappearing. It was about products disappearing.
Products change, but if you actually have some kind of skill, you should still be useful.
I can think of some skills that *may* be dying out. However, they were dying out a long time ago.
1) The ability to write complete and correct code *without* running it through a compiler.
2) The ability to write code that is as efficient as possible.
Both of these skills seem to be fading, primarily because the hardware has rendered them less valuable.
The penalty for using the compiler to debug your code isn't as clear as it once was. If you could only use The Computer for one hour every week, you couldn't waste that time finding typos. I'm not sure how much this matters, but my thinking is that people don't look at their code enough. When they were reviewing to find typos, they could also be more likely to find other kinds of errors.
While efficiency may still be valued, improvements in hardware has made it possible for less skilled programmers to get away with ignoring efficiency. "Fast enough" has replaced "as fast as possible". "Small enough" has replaced "as small as possible". How much this matters depends on your point of view. In some areas it is still extremely important, and people working in those areas focus on efficiency. If you weigh the consequences and make a decision to disregard efficiency for some chunk of code, that's no big deal. However, it seems that a large number of programmers just don't understand the system well enough to be able to make an informed choice. They're doing the best they can, because they don't know it could be better. They don't learn, because it is good enough.
However, I'm not nearly old enough to spend this much time talking about the good old days.
I was recently copying some details by hand from a maillog file. I was looking at the screen and not looking at what I was writing. When I looked at my notepad, I noticed that I had written everything in grafiti. I didn't know I was doing it until I looked at the page.
I have to say, I'm one of the people clinging to an old palm.
You had cat? You were lucky.
There's a distinction between the copyright and the license.
If you are the copyright holder, you own the work. It doesn't matter how you license it, you still own it. If the license you use says anyone can do anything, you still own it. You have just decided not to restrict use. However, the decision is yours. That's the reason I can't release Vista under the GPL. I don't hold the copyright, so I can't decide how it is used.
If I ever get around to it, I can release my DEC PPL to PostScript converter under whatever license I choose because I wrote that thing. Not that anyone would care.
At first pass, I read your last line as:
"Every world leader needs a mind-clearing robot."
Well, the first obvious step is not to permit *any* outgoing or incoming connection that doesn't go through your own proxies. Once you've done that, you have complete control over what hosts the users can or can't connect to. At that point I can think of several ways to easily limit what they can access. Don't permit encrypted connections except to approved hosts. Block connections to hosts that don't have a valid pointer record. Block access to dynamic addresses. At this point it really is just a question of what the institution's policies permit. I personally favor a hardass default of blocking everything except what is specifically permitted, but that might just be because I'm a prick ;-)
Don't be so impressed by your skills. Based on your description, IT just wasn't bothering to do their job (or they didn't know how to do it). Either that, or they weren't permitted to do what needed to be done.
Good catch. That's the one I was looking for. ;-)
Check out the previous discussion:
3 9251
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/26/0
> The Plaintiff(the riaa), was found to have no case.
>
> The defendant was allowed to get the legal costs.
The defendant asked to get legal costs, but the plaintiff said the defendent's costs were unreasonable. The judge ordered the plaintiff to reveal *their* legal costs to see what the plaintiff considers reasonable.
Then the plaintiff replied with, "Um,...what?"
It's fair use, not copyright infringement. If they had gone to court, she would win.
Time travel.
Who's the idiot now?
> The misconception that the brain is full of little conductors, and that its operation is just
> like a computer, with electrical voltages and organic logic gates giving rise to "thoughts" is
> dear to the common mind. This misconception is responsible for the glamour exercised by one of
> the great follies of the age: the notion that we are in an essential and important way like
> computers, and that computers could be made to be--in some deeply significant way--like us.
You seem to be under the impression that a computer is something built out of transistors. diodes, resistors, wire, and other electronic components. Sure, if you reduce a computer to the narrowest possible definition, you could say that the human brain is not a computer, but I don't think that would be valid.
From http://www.m-w.com/:
computer - one that computes; specifically : a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data
I don't see anything there that excludes brains. There are other ways to build computers. Human beings haven't even scratched the surface yet.
> Despite all the medical and technical advances, have we really made life better?
In my opinion: Yes. Not perfect, but definitely better. Picking just one example, Antibiotics have made life better. Very few people have to die a horrible death or lose a limb because they got a cut. We still have more to learn, but we're doing it. Most important: the process continues.
How the world has changed. When I was a kid, I had to go to my father's machine shop (the family business) and look at the calendars in the shop or the magazines in the bathroom. Now all my children have to do is get past the fact that their parents are watching TV behind them while they sit at the computer.
> The only way to guarantee that your child won't copycat something - say,
> get into a car with a stranger because he might take you to the beach -
> is to make sure your child never sees it in the first place.
Wait! I came up with another one. How about: keeping your children under adult supervision!
I've got three kids. Oldest is 8 years old, youngest will be 4 in April. This may come as quite a shock, but all three kids have never been unsupervised in their lives! I know it is amazing, but it is true. That's how my mom did it. I'm sure my life would be easier if I would just trust the TV to take care of them, but I feel like I might have an obligation to raise my children myself.
Obviously the level of supervision required for the 8 year old differs significantly from that required for the 3 year old, but the concept is the same. You don't have to stand over them watching every thing they do. However, if a three year old can grab the keys and take the car for a spin, you aren't doing your job.
I think it works out well. So far none of them have taken off in the family car.
Other things my kids haven't managed to do:
cut themselves with sharp knives,
burn themselves on the stove top,
cut arms or legs off with power tools,
electrocute themselves,
drown in the bathtub,...
Actually, the list just goes on and on. Those are all things they could easily do if they didn't have someone watching them.
The women who work in yarn and fabric stores are some of the most hateful priggish bigoted limiting sexist people you'll ever meet.
Just kidding. However, I'm always suprised by some of the things they say when I'm in the fabric store. If they were men working in Home Depot and made similar comments to women shopping there, they could get themselves fired.
That should read:
4) Microsoft implements as yet unidentified plan to destroy/consume Novell
5) Microsoft profits.
It always ends with Microsoft making the profit.
When the FBI comes knocking on the door, you can barricade yourself in and hold them off for a while, but they'll turn the power off & get in eventually.
At times like these, it's nice to know you can still destroy the evidence even after they cut power to the building.
http://www.semshred.com/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/680/tp/VE1HUj0xLHRpZD02NzIs
> *no* useful software... Does that include the OS itself? eh?
Not if you're talking about Windows.
doom wrote:
> You know, sometimes it seems like folks like myself with hipster-intellectual
> pretensions ought to be demanding a kick-back from the real estate industry. If
> they want our help making neighborhoods fashionable enough for the yups to move
> into, we really deserve something for it.
Easy. When you move into some broken down neighborhood slum, buy some land. When the neighborhood becomes fashionable enough for the yups to move in, sell the land for massive profit. There's your kick-back.
I can't believe I'm doing this.
die, dying, died.
I'm sorry. I couldn't help it.
She didn't support Bush's wiretapping,
therefore she is supporting the terrorists,
therefore she is a possible target of the wiretapping,
therefore she had a conflict of interest.
It's the Newthink.
Since he states the computers were signed for by the customer, and therefore stolen from his customer, doesn't the customer have to file the lawsuit?
Maybe I missed something.