It works! Therefore it is obsolete! Maybe we should replace it with NetBEUI? Huh? Let's break all the existing web applications all at once and start over with a buggy, untested, unproven, bloated, unnecessary, poorly documented protocol with no tools which nobody uses yet.
Ever try to get "Network Neighborhood" to work in Windows 9x? I've never seen HTTP not work.
Unless there is some new way to copy a video stream digitally, why can't movies be rented and streamed like the trailers are now? I think that would solve 75% of the problem right away. I think if the cost of streaming a movie around the time it became available to rent as a DVD were about half the cost of a rental, and it could be watched as many times as someone wanted in, say, a 72 hour time window, that would be fine.
I really fail to see how anyone would be able to afford the phenomenal bandwidth required to make a 2-3GB file available for download by a lot of people. University connection or not, there just isn't enough available to make it worth anyone's effort, and I certainly don't think students are going to saturate their network connections so a bunch of random people can download movies all day and night.
Congress does NOT need to get involved with new laws. It is ALREADY against the law to copy a movie without a license.
I remember that one too. I liked the part where he walks through the castle as the Dracula monster keeps trying to drop rocks on him. Bugs is singing to the tune of "It's Magic"
"Lala lala lala lala lala lala lala la Hocus Poooocus" *zing* and Dracula turns into a bat holding a huge rock in the air, which falls on him. lol Great stuff.
Although I can't state for certain which cartoons were or were not directed or animated by Chuck Jones, I've found that most of the greats were:
Daffy Duck as Robin Hood "ho ha-ha guard turn parry" especially the part where Porky Pig makes Daffy laugh after he falls into the river
"Whoa Camel, whoaaaa camel, awww come on whoa?? When I say whoa, I mean WHOA!!"
Bugs Bunny as the Conductor with the tenor who he makes hold the high note until the auditorium collapses. (The tuba scene at the beginning is priceless)
"DUCK DODGER IN THE 24TH AND A HALF CENTURYYYYYY!!!"
Bugs Bunny vs the Gas House Gorillas and the conga line around the bases with the 93 1/2 year old pitcher
Bugs, the huge red monster and the mad scientist in the castle with the neon sign flashing "Mad Scientist, Boo"
"Wile E. Coyote.. super genius... I like the way that rolls out...Wile Eeee Coyoteeeeee suuuuuuper geeeenius..."
Of course, there are too many to list, but these are some that I'm reminded of immediately. Chuck Jones: An absolute genius.
Universities are going to become the only organizations interested in providing high bandwidth without any interest in a return on investment.
Until all the tax revenue dries up because the businesses that rely on content subscriptions go out of business and stop paying taxes and employing people who pay taxes.
How many of the "I'LL NEVER PAY!!! NEVER, DO YOU HEAR ME??? NEVERRRRRR!!!" people play Everquest? at what is it, $10/month? Remember the Everquest article a couple of weeks ago?
"I have 12 accounts and I want FIFTY"
"I just bought the upgrade and I'm signing up now.."
A leading question. No response would be "impressive" enough, so what's the point? What do you want? Gigs and gigs of very expensive information for free?
Can't happen. Someone has to pay the bills or the site goes 404. Simple as that. As a previous message said: either support the quality sites you like, or get ready for AOL/Disney/MS/TimeWarner/McCulture from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 (ipv6 too)
Linux itself is a good example of the kind of high quality user-created content that will proliferate.
Sure. But most of the people working on Linux are either:
1) Employees of a company that markets Linux 2) People who have other jobs that work on Linux in their spare time.
There is a way for these people to support themselves, in other words. Now, if the goal is for all or most content to be hobby-level, that's fine for some people, but people are also going to want some variety, and they are also going to want professionally-produced content.
Besides, the value of Linux is far from zero. I've paid for at least four boxed versions (IIRC). Professionally-produced content has to be valued enough by the marketplace to pay for it, or there won't be any, unless the grocery stores, utilities and mortgage companies suddenly make their products free too.
This leads the conclusion that the market value of content will approach zero in the future.
Then there will be no content. It's that simple. Isn't that the big complaint about the Internet already? The value of the content isn't even zero yet.
Well, it's another tax. That's a problem. There are too many taxes on business now.
It already costs a small amount to file a copyright (plus legal fees), not to mention the costs of producing the "content" (hate that term) in the first place, a process which is already taxed about 4781 different ways.
It won't matter to huge corporations much (but it will matter), because nobody will see the costs, but for other heavily-taxed companies, it will discourage development.
It is an idea that is on the right track, however. The 95-year free copyright is too far in the other direction.
I applaud their efforts, and contribute some of my own. But that is their voluntary gift to the world. If an author chooses not to do so, I don't see why the law should force them to. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like the removal of copyright protection is a "taking".
Much has been written so far about how society as a whole benefits from placing works in public domain. I do not deny this. Society would probably benefit from my other possessions as well, but they have no right to them and are not allowed to take them, no matter how long I've owned them.
The difference is that an exchange has taken place. The public has granted that author a monopoly on that work for a limited term in exchange for the availability of that work to the public domain after a limited term.
When the work fails to enter the public domain, that benefits the author (or copyright holder) at the expense of the public domain, and that is an inequitable modification to the original agreement.
Why.. a 128-bit processor! Then we can access all the memory that will be manufactured for the next 50 years with just one pointer! Think of how cool that would be! Yeah!
By the time anyone figures out how to really use it, it'll be obsolete anyway.
Then, any work done on it will become "dated" in the eyes of the technology "media" while they wait for the latest upgrade of colorful icons in a really expensive shrink-wrapped box.
Companies cannot invest large amounts of money doing cool things with technology when they are certain to see their investment evaporate when the rug gets pulled: and the rug *always* gets pulled.
A 200-ton AppleMEGACINEMAPLEXOTRON display with a retail price of [error: overflow] and mounted on a giant chrome hydraulic adjustable arm so it can be swiveled and tilted for three theaters.
Screaming hordes of Jedi apprentices and Boba Fetts roaming from planet to planet. Storms of rocks and packing crates darkening the skies as thousands practice their telekinetic skills. Every conversation being conducted with constant frantic hand-waving. A light-sabre enhanced melee over the one Millenium Falcon ship that lasts 24-hours a day for months.
I'll note that you're being ridiculous to discount the importance of getting along with other people. Co-workers who are a legend in their own mind, who aren't willing to participate in the process of discussion and consensus are an insufferable pain in the rear and end up leaving shortly afterwards because they feel "unappreciated" (sob!).
See how we go from "not getting along" to "legend in their own mind?"
I'm not discounting the importance of getting along. What I am discounting is the importance of simple disagreements. Passionate discussion and persistence from a particular point of view are nigh unto forbidden in a "corporate" environment, because it is nearly universally seen as "not being a team player."
The key to preserving the paycheck is to sink back into the gray cubicle, smile, agree and never open your mouth. This, of course, is precisely the opposite of what a knowledgeable, competent, experienced software engineer should be doing, and the opposite of what they should have been HIRED to do.
With an attitude like that, it's no wonder that you don't interview well.
Where did I say I don't interview well? I interview spectacularly. I am also confident and self-assured, and I know my work. Companies
couldn't care less.
So you get an attitude test. You got a problem with that? Not my problem.
Sounds like its ok for everyone except the candidate to pick and choose their attitude.
...and it is your problem if you end up missing a top developer because a self-assured "attitude" was mistaken for arrogance. Most managers don't care, because they get paid anyway. Some managers, however, would rather hire that top developer, *let them do their job* and see how much it contributes to the company.
But NONE of these questions are aimed at simply putting you through meaningless hoops.
Well, that puts them ahead of 95% of the questions in most interviews.
this is the lifeblood of a development team.
...and precisely what is *not* being paid attention to by most hiring managers, or their companies. That's the problem.
And I'll bet this comes as a surprise to you, but anyone who tries to lie their way into a job is going to be disappointed a LOT.
Of course, it's always better to presume the candidate is a liar. I mean, what better way to disqualify someone, right?
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that they were wrong, or misunderstood instructions from their manager? What if both candidates *thought* they were the lead? What if all three *were* managers at some point?
It's no different than having to show 46 forms of ID to cash an $11 check at your own bank. This corrosive, adversarial attitude people (and companies) have towards other people is absolutely sickening.
Starting from these kinds of disadvantages, it is incredible that anyone gets hired.
How do you know a person is qualified before talking to them?
It's written right there on the resume.
You believe that your needs can be met with some checklist of requirements?
No. If that were true, then I wouldn't need to interview at all.
If a hiring manager doesn't know what he needs, then he is totally unaware of his situation, and wouldn't be able to manage.
Congratulations! You have just concluded the exact same thing that a multitude of other engineers have.
Lists 8 programming languages---if you, or anyone, is hiring on some "language count" metric, you are being ill-served.
True. However, it stands to reason that someone who has taken the time to learn and become competent with eight languages will have little trouble developing *in any language*. Hiring managers, of course, always seeking to put the candidate at a disadvantage, insist on experience with a ninth, because THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT PROGRAMMING A COMPUTER.
Why does he go through the enormous effort of screening candidates if he doesn't have some idea of what work needs to be done that doesn't yet have a person to do it?
For the same reason he goes to lunch at the same restaurant every day. It's just one of the things that has to get done.
If as you say, office politics and dealing with people are "paramount to the completion of even the most trivial task once they are hired" why shouldn't the interviewer discriminate on that basis? Anyone who can't deal with other people would be missing the paramount qualification!
Because requiring irrelevancies to complete tasks is the problem, not the candidate's disinterest. My question to a hiring manager is simple: Do you need this work done or not?
You would be astounded and amazed at the amount of competent, highly-paid time that is flagrantly wasted in most "high-tech" jobs. The amount of time actually spent writing, debugging or testing actual working code is vanishingly low: perhaps 5% of a work week. The rest of the time is spent outmanuevering the office political machine, printing and making copies of documents nobody will ever read, avoiding the Monday donut list, and trying to avoid all-day meetings and layoffs.
You seem to be bitter about the job search process, perhaps justifiably so. But complaining about how the real world works does not qualify as a strategy for achieving much in that world.
But see, the real world doesn't have to work this way. I cannot understand why a process which seeks to invite someone to become a "team player" starts off with an adversarial and irrelevant waste of time with the primary purpose of *disqualifying* the candidate, often for reasons which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their qualifications or ability to do the work.
I'm not bitter, but I am realistic. My attempts to find stable, reliable, adequately paid work in software engineering have been largely defeated, despite massive effort. I did what I was told. I invested the time. I learned the technologies, and I did excellent work on excellent projects. I can list numerous accomplishments, many of my own initiative and time. None of that matters to employers, however. They want someone to agree with them and buy donuts every fourth Monday.
Of course, I'm open to suggestions, but I don't put a lot of stock in advice that recommends we all just "suck it up." That approach leads straight back to unemployment in almost every case, and to poor employment in the others.
Well, of course not. I should keep my mouth shut and say "yessir! I think it's a great idea to lay off 200 competent engineers! Just spiffy!"
..and job interviews *are* personality contests. It's all about whether you are likable and get along with everyone. Qualifications are largely irrelevant, which is why technology companies go out of business constantly.
Slashdot Mirror
"I need a way to send a request to a server and not the get result for five days."
No doubt so the server can be rebooted three or four times...
It works! Therefore it is obsolete! Maybe we should replace it with NetBEUI? Huh? Let's break all the existing web applications all at once and start over with a buggy, untested, unproven, bloated, unnecessary, poorly documented protocol with no tools which nobody uses yet.
Ever try to get "Network Neighborhood" to work in Windows 9x? I've never seen HTTP not work.
Leave it alone. It works.
Unless there is some new way to copy a video stream digitally, why can't movies be rented and streamed like the trailers are now? I think that would solve 75% of the problem right away. I think if the cost of streaming a movie around the time it became available to rent as a DVD were about half the cost of a rental, and it could be watched as many times as someone wanted in, say, a 72 hour time window, that would be fine.
I really fail to see how anyone would be able to afford the phenomenal bandwidth required to make a 2-3GB file available for download by a lot of people. University connection or not, there just isn't enough available to make it worth anyone's effort, and I certainly don't think students are going to saturate their network connections so a bunch of random people can download movies all day and night.
Congress does NOT need to get involved with new laws. It is ALREADY against the law to copy a movie without a license.
I remember that one too. I liked the part where he walks through the castle as the Dracula monster keeps trying to drop rocks on him. Bugs is singing to the tune of "It's Magic"
"Lala lala lala lala lala lala lala la Hocus Poooocus" *zing* and Dracula turns into a bat holding a huge rock in the air, which falls on him. lol Great stuff.
Although I can't state for certain which cartoons were or were not directed or animated by Chuck Jones, I've found that most of the greats were:
.Wile Eeee Coyoteeeeee suuuuuuper geeeenius..."
Daffy Duck as Robin Hood "ho ha-ha guard turn parry" especially the part where Porky Pig makes Daffy laugh after he falls into the river
"Whoa Camel, whoaaaa camel, awww come on whoa?? When I say whoa, I mean WHOA!!"
Bugs Bunny as the Conductor with the tenor who he makes hold the high note until the auditorium collapses. (The tuba scene at the beginning is priceless)
"DUCK DODGER IN THE 24TH AND A HALF CENTURYYYYYY!!!"
Bugs Bunny vs the Gas House Gorillas and the conga line around the bases with the 93 1/2 year old pitcher
Bugs, the huge red monster and the mad scientist in the castle with the neon sign flashing "Mad Scientist, Boo"
"Wile E. Coyote.. super genius... I like the way that rolls out..
Of course, there are too many to list, but these are some that I'm reminded of immediately. Chuck Jones: An absolute genius.
the mad scientist and his gigantic red hairy monster
Nighty niiiiiiight... the ever-famous "ether scene" in the castle with the neon sign flashing:
"Mad Scientist"
"Boo"
Sheer genius
Universities are going to become the only organizations interested in providing high bandwidth without any interest in a return on investment.
Until all the tax revenue dries up because the businesses that rely on content subscriptions go out of business and stop paying taxes and employing people who pay taxes.
How many of the "I'LL NEVER PAY!!! NEVER, DO YOU HEAR ME??? NEVERRRRRR!!!" people play Everquest? at what is it, $10/month? Remember the Everquest article a couple of weeks ago?
"I have 12 accounts and I want FIFTY"
"I just bought the upgrade and I'm signing up now.."
and so on..
just wondering...
What else ya got?
A leading question. No response would be "impressive" enough, so what's the point? What do you want? Gigs and gigs of very expensive information for free?
Can't happen. Someone has to pay the bills or the site goes 404. Simple as that. As a previous message said: either support the quality sites you like, or get ready for AOL/Disney/MS/TimeWarner/McCulture from 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255 (ipv6 too)
Linux itself is a good example of the kind of high quality user-created content that will proliferate.
Sure. But most of the people working on Linux are either:
1) Employees of a company that markets Linux
2) People who have other jobs that work on Linux in their spare time.
There is a way for these people to support themselves, in other words. Now, if the goal is for all or most content to be hobby-level, that's fine for some people, but people are also going to want some variety, and they are also going to want professionally-produced content.
Besides, the value of Linux is far from zero. I've paid for at least four boxed versions (IIRC).
Professionally-produced content has to be valued enough by the marketplace to pay for it, or there won't be any, unless the grocery stores, utilities and mortgage companies suddenly make their products free too.
This leads the conclusion that the market value of content will approach zero in the future.
Then there will be no content. It's that simple. Isn't that the big complaint about the Internet already? The value of the content isn't even zero yet.
Problems?
Well, it's another tax. That's a problem. There are too many taxes on business now.
It already costs a small amount to file a copyright (plus legal fees), not to mention the costs of producing the "content" (hate that term) in the first place, a process which is already taxed about 4781 different ways.
It won't matter to huge corporations much (but it will matter), because nobody will see the costs, but for other heavily-taxed companies, it will discourage development.
It is an idea that is on the right track, however. The 95-year free copyright is too far in the other direction.
"Gnarly" lol
I applaud their efforts, and contribute some of my own. But that is their voluntary gift to the world. If an author chooses not to do so, I don't see why the law should force them to. I am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like the removal of copyright protection is a "taking".
Much has been written so far about how society as a whole benefits from placing works in public domain. I do not deny this. Society would probably benefit from my other possessions as well, but they have no right to them and are not allowed to take them, no matter how long I've owned them.
The difference is that an exchange has taken place. The public has granted that author a monopoly on that work for a limited term in exchange for the availability of that work to the public domain after a limited term.
When the work fails to enter the public domain, that benefits the author (or copyright holder) at the expense of the public domain, and that is an inequitable modification to the original agreement.
Why.. a 128-bit processor! Then we can access all the memory that will be manufactured for the next 50 years with just one pointer! Think of how cool that would be! Yeah!
sigh...
By the time anyone figures out how to really use it, it'll be obsolete anyway.
Then, any work done on it will become "dated" in the eyes of the technology "media" while they wait for the latest upgrade of colorful icons in a really expensive shrink-wrapped box.
Companies cannot invest large amounts of money doing cool things with technology when they are certain to see their investment evaporate when the rug gets pulled: and the rug *always* gets pulled.
I can see it now:
:)
A 200-ton AppleMEGACINEMAPLEXOTRON display with a retail price of [error: overflow] and mounted on a giant chrome hydraulic adjustable arm so it can be swiveled and tilted for three theaters.
Don't forget the transparent speakers...
Ometedou!
Someone will probably record a demo of it too:
"Click here for a 3 minute third-person MPEG of Jar-Jar being chased across an open 400-acre field by 7,620 Galaxies players and a fleet of 281 ships"
Screaming hordes of Jedi apprentices and Boba Fetts roaming from planet to planet. Storms of rocks and packing crates darkening the skies as thousands practice their telekinetic skills. Every conversation being conducted with constant frantic hand-waving. A light-sabre enhanced melee over the one Millenium Falcon ship that lasts 24-hours a day for months.
Oh, yay.
I'll note that you're being ridiculous to discount the importance of getting along with other people. Co-workers who are a legend in their own mind, who aren't willing to participate in the process of discussion and consensus are an insufferable pain in the rear and end up leaving shortly afterwards because they feel "unappreciated" (sob!).
See how we go from "not getting along" to "legend in their own mind?"
I'm not discounting the importance of getting along. What I am discounting is the importance of simple disagreements. Passionate discussion and persistence from a particular point of view are nigh unto forbidden in a "corporate" environment, because it is nearly universally seen as "not being a team player."
The key to preserving the paycheck is to sink back into the gray cubicle, smile, agree and never open your mouth. This, of course, is precisely the opposite of what a knowledgeable, competent, experienced software engineer should be doing, and the opposite of what they should have been HIRED to do.
With an attitude like that, it's no wonder that you don't interview well.
Where did I say I don't interview well? I interview spectacularly. I am also confident and self-assured, and I know my work. Companies
couldn't care less.
So you get an attitude test. You got a problem with that? Not my problem.
Sounds like its ok for everyone except the candidate to pick and choose their attitude.
...and it is your problem if you end up missing a top developer because a self-assured "attitude" was mistaken for arrogance. Most managers don't care, because they get paid anyway. Some managers, however, would rather hire that top developer, *let them do their job* and see how much it contributes to the company.
But NONE of these questions are aimed at simply putting you through meaningless hoops.
Well, that puts them ahead of 95% of the questions in most interviews.
this is the lifeblood of a development team.
...and precisely what is *not* being paid attention to by most hiring managers, or their companies. That's the problem.
And I'll bet this comes as a surprise to you, but anyone who tries to lie their way into a job is going to be disappointed a LOT.
Of course, it's always better to presume the candidate is a liar. I mean, what better way to disqualify someone, right?
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that they were wrong, or misunderstood instructions from their manager? What if both candidates *thought* they were the lead? What if all three *were* managers at some point?
It's no different than having to show 46 forms of ID to cash an $11 check at your own bank. This corrosive, adversarial attitude people (and companies) have towards other people is absolutely sickening.
Starting from these kinds of disadvantages, it is incredible that anyone gets hired.
How do you know a person is qualified before talking to them?
It's written right there on the resume.
You believe that your needs can be met with some checklist of requirements?
No. If that were true, then I wouldn't need to interview at all.
If a hiring manager doesn't know what he needs, then he is totally unaware of his situation, and wouldn't be able to manage.
Congratulations! You have just concluded the exact same thing that a multitude of other engineers have.
Lists 8 programming languages---if you, or anyone, is hiring on some "language count" metric, you are being ill-served.
True. However, it stands to reason that someone who has taken the time to learn and become competent with eight languages will have little trouble developing *in any language*. Hiring managers, of course, always seeking to put the candidate at a disadvantage, insist on experience with a ninth, because THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT PROGRAMMING A COMPUTER.
Why does he go through the enormous effort of screening candidates if he doesn't have some idea of what work needs to be done that doesn't yet have a person to do it?
For the same reason he goes to lunch at the same restaurant every day. It's just one of the things that has to get done.
If as you say, office politics and dealing with people are "paramount to the completion of even the most trivial task once they are hired" why shouldn't the interviewer discriminate on that basis? Anyone who can't deal with other people would be missing the paramount qualification!
Because requiring irrelevancies to complete tasks is the problem, not the candidate's disinterest. My question to a hiring manager is simple: Do you need this work done or not?
You would be astounded and amazed at the amount of competent, highly-paid time that is flagrantly wasted in most "high-tech" jobs. The amount of time actually spent writing, debugging or testing actual working code is vanishingly low: perhaps 5% of a work week. The rest of the time is spent outmanuevering the office political machine, printing and making copies of documents nobody will ever read, avoiding the Monday donut list, and trying to avoid all-day meetings and layoffs.
You seem to be bitter about the job search process, perhaps justifiably so. But complaining about how the real world works does not qualify as a strategy for achieving much in that world.
But see, the real world doesn't have to work this way. I cannot understand why a process which seeks to invite someone to become a "team player" starts off with an adversarial and irrelevant waste of time with the primary purpose of *disqualifying* the candidate, often for reasons which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with their qualifications or ability to do the work.
I'm not bitter, but I am realistic. My attempts to find stable, reliable, adequately paid work in software engineering have been largely defeated, despite massive effort. I did what I was told. I invested the time. I learned the technologies, and I did excellent work on excellent projects. I can list numerous accomplishments, many of my own initiative and time. None of that matters to employers, however. They want someone to agree with them and buy donuts every fourth Monday.
Of course, I'm open to suggestions, but I don't put a lot of stock in advice that recommends we all just "suck it up." That approach leads straight back to unemployment in almost every case, and to poor employment in the others.
Well, of course not. I should keep my mouth shut and say "yessir! I think it's a great idea to lay off 200 competent engineers! Just spiffy!"
..and job interviews *are* personality contests. It's all about whether you are likable and get along with everyone. Qualifications are largely irrelevant, which is why technology companies go out of business constantly.