Have you ever dealt with people who foist NDAs on you?
In my experience, they never had anything to worry about. The big companies I worked for? Everyone knew their product line, and how far behind they were (still, one of them had some nice products, but nothing really original). The startups I visited? They were receiving money from SEOs and using non-CS / SE people to do programming for their 'product' (on a side note, I did not know pre-med students had it THAT rough).
Basically, if I hear an idea actually worth stealing, my first order of business will be to shut you up. That means finding out who you told your idea to, copying their names and addresses down as quickly as possible, and ensuring they aren't a 'threat.' Then I take you aside, and give you a brief lecture about software patents, and how the 'mail the idea to yourself in a postmarked envelope' idea doesn't work, and how 'First To File' means contacting the lawyer right now. If you contact the lawyer (have the cash for that), then I would proceed to the next step: active development, and a discussion about how many others to employ / who gets what and how.
Nonsense. Some interesting people the other day were promoting a $$$$$$ check from the government. They believed that some people would continue working even with that check.
"Most implementations are poorly done and therefore never make it out the door or languish in obscurity. What we have are 1000s of bad coders and literally millions of ideas." -> Mostly true. We have 1000s of bad coders, and an infinite number of ideas (many of them bad ideas). You'd be amazed how many bad ideas get implemented on a daily basis.
"Implementation is what matters. I can guarantee that every software idea you can come up over the next entire year has already been thought of by other people." Yes, to the former sentence. The general idea, perhaps, has been thought of, in much the same way as taking a trip to the moon has been thought of since the Victorian era, but it's the implementation (the rocket ship) that matters. Who cares if you have this great idea, but no idea how to make it actually work in reality?
"Your ideas are not special, you are not an innovative genius, you do not become successful by merely thinking of widget X. You become successful by making widget X in such a way that it is useful to others and then working very hard to sell it or market it correctly. Anything else is just pure luck." Meh, you're ideas are special, you are an innovative genius, but yes, you do not become successful merely by thinking of widget X. You become successful by selling / using / giving away widget X to put yourself in a better position. You have a program that helps you pick the right stocks? You don't have to sell that program. You program an open-source widget that helps you get a job at a company? Again, didn't need to sell or market it. You have a program that is useful to the 10% of the population that prefers CLIs? Then yes, market / sell it.
Luck seems to accumulate with experience, both good and bad. Pilot a project to victory, you have a recipe for good idea. Pilot it to defeat, you know what to avoid.
True, but GOOD coders cost GOOD MONEY. Mind you, not all GOOD coders cost GOOD MONEY, but the vast majority do (you think MS / Google / the Financial District won't lure a top grade programmer away from the mom and pop employing him / her? They'll throw whatever they need at him to get him / her, with the higher the grade, the more insane the stuff). Hence, if you have to ask how much a potential programmer thinks he / she is worth, you're not the type to employ one of them. A rockstar programmer ranks up there with a CEO who is actually worth the billions you're paying him. And most programmers are not rockstars.
We have 100s of implementations for every good idea, and 1000s of programmers for every good idea. There are good ideas being minted all the time, but the rate of successful implementation is somewhat limited.
Indeed. Good ideas, unlike bad ideas, seem to take hideous amounts of capital to materialize. It means not cutting any corners, and not shafting the customer. For some odd reason, that's never been a big hit.
Indeed. The general rule I have is that if the 'idea' can be summed up in a sentence / paragraph, it's probably not worth implementing. Why? Because the person telling you it is relying on you to spot the flaws and work out the implementation details for them. That's annoying.
A properly worked out 'idea' is something that myself and friends can hack away at with questions hours, and you already have an answer (that my friends and I agree is a GOOD answer) to 98% of those questions. A little less 'let's make a facebook clone, and get rich' and a little more 'I've studied programming, understand what is and isn't generally feasible, and have a list of improvements over facebook's design that are worth implementing.' I make exceptions for people who are fast learners, as I do not need to remind them what is and isn't feasible; but God help me when I have to deal with bricks.
And yes, if I'm going more than 50% of the work, I am going to take more than 50% of the profits. Why? Because you probably have no capital (a few thousand isn't capital these days, it's a paycheck for one month), I'll be supplying the equipment and software, pulling all-nighters, while you lean over my shoulder and ask 'if it's done yet.' When I ask to add more people to get more work done, you'll come back with 'but then we'll have to share the profits!' I will never understand why avarice and stupidity are best friends.
Nonsense. They're just web programmers who've been subjected to a client's "Next Big Thing: A Facebook Clone Story" one too many times. The signal to noise ratio there is kind of extreme, and after a while, you begin to cringe when they say they want to talk to you about something 'new,' but they don't know if they can trust you.
As someone who has suffered from it, I'd more than most people (onlookers, quoting the DSM) about it. The major problem you run into is that the pysch professions' idea of 'changing your environment' involves men with butterfly nets and a new place quite similar, in many respects, to prison.
I'd wager a fair amount of money that if you transported many a depression sufferer to a Caribbean island, and told them they never had to go home, they'd be cured. As such, it is environmental. We need only perform this experiment on a few hundred people to see if I am correct (results meaning more here than flimsy logic).
You cannot tell that it's not environmental if you don't first remove that person from the scope of that environment. Mistakes are made all the time about what exactly constitutes that person's environment; for instance, you'll move to a new home and a new job, but your overbearing parents will still be calling you and telling you that you amount to nothing in life. You may laugh, but it's common enough to warrant mention.
Aside from genetic tendencies, depression is typically a form of feedback from your environment not being 'right' for you. And I am not talking about ecosystems here.
So, while it is a scientific triumph (huzzah!) to find a temporary way to get around depression by sticking a wire in your brain, it's not one we should readily consider. Instead, we should focus on a more permanent solution, that of removing people from environments that would necessitate putting an electrode in their brains.
On a separate note, I am surprised at the number of psychs / etc. who prescribe pills in preference to telling their patients that they need to quit their job / move somewhere else. Sometimes the solution isn't a bunch of SSRIs, it's moving to another state (across country), or quitting an abusive job.
I know, and I'm working on it. What it comes down to is that I have terrible memory, and so can only really hold two irrational beliefs in my head at any given time. If I try to put another one in, it just pushes one of the others out.
Slashdot Mirror
We're tried that, it hasn't helped. Countless wars has bred a human race that is genetically inferior and more aggressive.
Which is why you need to become a mushroomian. It's good for the environment, and okay for you!
Rubber spoon rubber spoon...
Have you ever dealt with people who foist NDAs on you?
In my experience, they never had anything to worry about. The big companies I worked for? Everyone knew their product line, and how far behind they were (still, one of them had some nice products, but nothing really original). The startups I visited? They were receiving money from SEOs and using non-CS / SE people to do programming for their 'product' (on a side note, I did not know pre-med students had it THAT rough).
Basically, if I hear an idea actually worth stealing, my first order of business will be to shut you up. That means finding out who you told your idea to, copying their names and addresses down as quickly as possible, and ensuring they aren't a 'threat.' Then I take you aside, and give you a brief lecture about software patents, and how the 'mail the idea to yourself in a postmarked envelope' idea doesn't work, and how 'First To File' means contacting the lawyer right now. If you contact the lawyer (have the cash for that), then I would proceed to the next step: active development, and a discussion about how many others to employ / who gets what and how.
No one has made it to step two.
Nonsense. Some interesting people the other day were promoting a $$$$$$ check from the government. They believed that some people would continue working even with that check.
"Most implementations are poorly done and therefore never make it out the door or languish in obscurity. What we have are 1000s of bad coders and literally millions of ideas." -> Mostly true. We have 1000s of bad coders, and an infinite number of ideas (many of them bad ideas). You'd be amazed how many bad ideas get implemented on a daily basis.
"Implementation is what matters. I can guarantee that every software idea you can come up over the next entire year has already been thought of by other people." Yes, to the former sentence. The general idea, perhaps, has been thought of, in much the same way as taking a trip to the moon has been thought of since the Victorian era, but it's the implementation (the rocket ship) that matters. Who cares if you have this great idea, but no idea how to make it actually work in reality?
"Your ideas are not special, you are not an innovative genius, you do not become successful by merely thinking of widget X. You become successful by making widget X in such a way that it is useful to others and then working very hard to sell it or market it correctly. Anything else is just pure luck." Meh, you're ideas are special, you are an innovative genius, but yes, you do not become successful merely by thinking of widget X. You become successful by selling / using / giving away widget X to put yourself in a better position. You have a program that helps you pick the right stocks? You don't have to sell that program. You program an open-source widget that helps you get a job at a company? Again, didn't need to sell or market it. You have a program that is useful to the 10% of the population that prefers CLIs? Then yes, market / sell it.
Luck seems to accumulate with experience, both good and bad. Pilot a project to victory, you have a recipe for good idea. Pilot it to defeat, you know what to avoid.
True, but GOOD coders cost GOOD MONEY. Mind you, not all GOOD coders cost GOOD MONEY, but the vast majority do (you think MS / Google / the Financial District won't lure a top grade programmer away from the mom and pop employing him / her? They'll throw whatever they need at him to get him / her, with the higher the grade, the more insane the stuff). Hence, if you have to ask how much a potential programmer thinks he / she is worth, you're not the type to employ one of them. A rockstar programmer ranks up there with a CEO who is actually worth the billions you're paying him. And most programmers are not rockstars.
We have 100s of implementations for every good idea, and 1000s of programmers for every good idea. There are good ideas being minted all the time, but the rate of successful implementation is somewhat limited.
Indeed. Good ideas, unlike bad ideas, seem to take hideous amounts of capital to materialize. It means not cutting any corners, and not shafting the customer. For some odd reason, that's never been a big hit.
Indeed. The general rule I have is that if the 'idea' can be summed up in a sentence / paragraph, it's probably not worth implementing. Why? Because the person telling you it is relying on you to spot the flaws and work out the implementation details for them. That's annoying.
A properly worked out 'idea' is something that myself and friends can hack away at with questions hours, and you already have an answer (that my friends and I agree is a GOOD answer) to 98% of those questions. A little less 'let's make a facebook clone, and get rich' and a little more 'I've studied programming, understand what is and isn't generally feasible, and have a list of improvements over facebook's design that are worth implementing.' I make exceptions for people who are fast learners, as I do not need to remind them what is and isn't feasible; but God help me when I have to deal with bricks.
And yes, if I'm going more than 50% of the work, I am going to take more than 50% of the profits. Why? Because you probably have no capital (a few thousand isn't capital these days, it's a paycheck for one month), I'll be supplying the equipment and software, pulling all-nighters, while you lean over my shoulder and ask 'if it's done yet.' When I ask to add more people to get more work done, you'll come back with 'but then we'll have to share the profits!' I will never understand why avarice and stupidity are best friends.
Nonsense. They're just web programmers who've been subjected to a client's "Next Big Thing: A Facebook Clone Story" one too many times. The signal to noise ratio there is kind of extreme, and after a while, you begin to cringe when they say they want to talk to you about something 'new,' but they don't know if they can trust you.
Indeed. You need to be able to implement an idea, and intelligently, to be successful.
What do you think public schools are (in the US)? Servant Ed.
Ah yes, but to ze government, they are numbers. From the day you are born, you owe the government a certain amount of money for them letting you live.
And try to change things, and we can't have that; too much of the human race is 'invested' in keeping things the way they are.
As someone who has suffered from it, I'd more than most people (onlookers, quoting the DSM) about it. The major problem you run into is that the pysch professions' idea of 'changing your environment' involves men with butterfly nets and a new place quite similar, in many respects, to prison.
I'd wager a fair amount of money that if you transported many a depression sufferer to a Caribbean island, and told them they never had to go home, they'd be cured. As such, it is environmental. We need only perform this experiment on a few hundred people to see if I am correct (results meaning more here than flimsy logic).
You cannot tell that it's not environmental if you don't first remove that person from the scope of that environment. Mistakes are made all the time about what exactly constitutes that person's environment; for instance, you'll move to a new home and a new job, but your overbearing parents will still be calling you and telling you that you amount to nothing in life. You may laugh, but it's common enough to warrant mention.
Me thinks they are missing the point.
Aside from genetic tendencies, depression is typically a form of feedback from your environment not being 'right' for you. And I am not talking about ecosystems here.
So, while it is a scientific triumph (huzzah!) to find a temporary way to get around depression by sticking a wire in your brain, it's not one we should readily consider. Instead, we should focus on a more permanent solution, that of removing people from environments that would necessitate putting an electrode in their brains.
On a separate note, I am surprised at the number of psychs / etc. who prescribe pills in preference to telling their patients that they need to quit their job / move somewhere else. Sometimes the solution isn't a bunch of SSRIs, it's moving to another state (across country), or quitting an abusive job.
Remind me to do that the next time we are in court.
"lightknight, you've been accused of speeding. How do you plead?"
"Your honour, let's talk firmware. I will show you, as a Computer Scientist, in hexadecimal, where the error in the code of that radar device exists."
"Case dismissed. Now, can you help us with our printer? It keeps printing blank pages."
Thank you.
Wonderous. Proving once again that the US legal system is above the laws of physics.
Would you happen to have the name of said Judge who committed this gaff?
Cry me a river. Tell them to be big girls, and cough up some objective evidence.
Tired of this constant bullsh*t in traffic court.
Indeed. I'm sure the officer's face was red after hearing this explanation.
I know, and I'm working on it. What it comes down to is that I have terrible memory, and so can only really hold two irrational beliefs in my head at any given time. If I try to put another one in, it just pushes one of the others out.
And someone got it. ;-)
Python with curly brackets, and it's a deal.