I think we agree on most points, and I definitely agree that "neither politicians nor the public seem to care enough to make this a high profile issue."
In the scope of the article, though, don't you think that some of the "holier-than-thou fuss about the NSA" might be a reaction to holier-than-thou statements like "the US government... in its role as the 'caretaker' of the internet?"
I agree that other countries are doing the same thing. I don't think the main differences are the ones you listed, though.(1)NSA certainly have more resources than their counterparts in other countries, but I wouldn't automatically equal that to being "better at it". (2) People outside the US are making a fuss.
The main difference from my POV is that most other democracies don't tout their spying as being "caretekers of the Internet" or "a bulwark against international terrorism". The spy and cheat and keep very quiet about it. When they get caught with their hands in someone else's cookie jar they do some low profile damage control and get back to business as usual.
Wait let me guess.... You don't have a college education do you? If you do, I'd ask for a refund, because your college expereince sounds lame. Or maybe you did go to college, and are attemptint to suggest that all collegs are as lame as your experience? See, if you had gotten a good education you would have been able to see the flaw in the logic before posting. Or maybe you just aren't "College material."
I do have a college education and I like to think I learned a lot of useful things there, so I won't ask for a refund.
I met a lot of people at college that I would hire immediately if I had the chance today, and I think they also learned a thing or two. Most of them graduated, and a few dropped out.
But, and here's my point, I also met some people in college that graduated without showing any interest in learning something. They knew that a degree would help them get a certain job in a certain salary bracket and made sure that they learned enough to pass the exams. They were far from stupid and had some talent for pattern matching, but I wouldn't call them good engineer or scientist material.
So, unless a degree comes from the perfect university you obviously attended, I still claim that the degree only proves that you passed the exams, not that you actually learned anything. Feel free to attack the logic in that, and please try to be a little less of an anonymous asshole - I mean with your glorious education you should be above that.
The only skill a degree proves you have learned is how to pass exams.
If passing exams is an essential part of your job description, then I guess a degree is invaluable.
Perhaps you could explain to us why this scenario is implausible. Otherwise shut the fuck up. Idiot.
There are several posts above that will do that for you, and I saw no need to repeat what is obvious for anyone with at least one working brain cell. But since you ask so nicely: look up "Non sequitur" in your favorite encyclopedia.
A piece of advice for free: If you are going to call people idiots, please have the balls to do that without hiding behind an anonymous account.
A heated debate over an article from The Onion? I thought/. was supposed to be "news for nerds" not "half baked conspiracy theories for complete fuckwits." A clue for those of you who think you understand the legal system of Sweden from watching a few episodes of Law & Order or its foreign policy because you have managed to gather that Sweden is in Europe: Get a new tin foil hat and head to davidicke.com instead of posting crap here.
I would have said "stop being a fan and start being a professional". I would never hire anyone who defines themselves as fan of any piece of technonolgy, software, process or IT guru unless I was 100% sure that this person would spend their time locked up in the basement working exclusively with the object of their fandom and never interact professionally with another human being.
There are many good suggestions on what to look for in a good Windows expert in other posts, so I'll just add one thing: Make sure that your interview includes questions about working in a heterogenous environment. You can't always do the things you're used to in a single-OS environment when you have to interact with systems running on a fundamentally different platform.
Ok... I probably don't understand what you're getting at here, but:
First of all: The subset of electronic musicians I was referring to are the ones that can't use the physical machines for some reason (can't afford, not enough room in the home studio, born a few decades too late, the real thing is in pieces after that last gig, etc.).
With that said: I can't see why anyone would need the UI they use to control or record from an actual, physical instrument the way you describe it to look anyway near the original.
If you use the actual instrument to control and record through MIDI, what use would a rendered approximation of what you actually have in front of you and at your fingertips be?
When you play live using any midi controller you hardly look at the screen, and when you do it's for visual feedback that probably would be much clearer if the information came in big glowing green digits instead of minute movements of a rendered knob on a dark wood background.
I completly agree with your last statement, but I can't see how it applies to how the UI.
In fact, I cannot come up with a single practical reason for the UI too like like it's physical counterpart, apart form initial familiarity with the controls if you've used the original. The only other reason I can see is the one I stated in my first post: It looks good!
The only type of software I've seen where this is the norm is music software, especially VST plugins. I guess the thought behind this is: "If you emulate the sound of a classic synthesizer, why not emulate the look-and-feel of it as well?" Of course it is easier for someone who has actually played the physical instrument to find the correct controls, but I think it's more a question of aesthetics than usability. The idea has carried over to instruments and effects that have no physical counterpart: If you have an analogue-sounding synth you'll get knobs and patch cables ( moog style); if it's a FM synth you'll probably see a lot of labled push-buttons (Yamaha DX7) and so on. Electronic musicians love their gadgets and now that we don't fiddle with actual knobs and sliders anymore, we still like to be reminded of them in the UI. Still, I don't think this represent "an unwillingness to move forward". Maybe part nostalgia and part the fact that these devices looked great and inspired you to play them.
I think you can find several examples like that without much effort. That is not the point, though. I'm not claiming that the U.S. has no influence, positive or negative, on Sweden because it is obvious that they have. The point is that escaping to Ecuador doesn't doesn't make sense if you want to get out of the reach of U.S. agencies who supposedly have the power to break the law in any country with impunity. It does make sense if you don't want to have the dirtier details of your sex life exposed in a Swedish court room, though...
Let's assume that the conspiracy theories are right for a second. Somehow U.S. agencies are behind the charges against Assange in Sweden and believe they have enough control over the Swedish judicial system, and in extension the Swedish government, to get him delivered into their hands. Even if we assume that Sweden is an U.S. lapdog, we're still talking about a relatively open society, so this might be harder to do than in some other countries, but for the argument's sake: They really want to get Assange. Knowing all this, what does Assange do? Try to escape to Ecuador, of course, because the same agencies who managed to arrange the situation in Sweden will have no chance of getting to him there. I mean, who have ever heard of U.S. clandestine operations in South America? And of course the government and courts of Ecuador is much less corrupt than those of Sweden.
Perhaps just a strange choice of words, but you could get the impression that one of the raided providers is called "ISP". The only named provider I have heard mentioned is PRQ, who also hosts Wikileaks.
Smalltalk is not a religion, it is the language of the Illuminati. Smalltalkers laugh att the petty squabbles between supporters of the lesser languages, because we know the truth! In any case we can always redefine what is #true...
The point I was trying to make is not that people are stupid or ignorant, but that they are allowed or even forced to behave in a stupid or ignorant way.
People with degrees in CompSci are probably not as common here (Sweden) as where you are, but I have still worked with a lot of people who have a solid education in the fundamentals of computer science. Unfortunately, most of them have not have had a single chance to apply this knowledge since they left the university. Managers, sales people and clients usually have little or no knowledge about what the CompSci people can do, and therefore their skills are hardly ever needed.
Our main problem is that there is no reason why a client should pay a consultant with a degree in CompSci to do a job, when they can get the same work done for a fraction of that cost if they hire a self-taught independent contractor or turn to a "code factory" in Lithuania or India. We can never compete on a market where the only commodity is "quick fix solutions".
One thing I see happening right now is that both clients and the providers are getting aware of this situation and moving towards a more segmented market. On on hand you have the "skilled craftsmen" who can provide the quick solutions and repairs along with a solid experience with the tools neded to create these solutions. On the other hand you have the people with a more abstract or strategic approach to systems development, who can make sure that the contructed solutions satisfy customer needs and are efficient and easy to maintain. The CompSci people should not even bother with the first category, because they are overqualified in one sense and usually not specialized enough to be efficient in another. In a more strategic role, though, I really think that we can use our academic backgrounds to deliver value to our customers and that they are willing to pay for it.
I should have known better than to use that example on a forum where everyone writes in English, and a majority seem to be native anglophones:) English is a very versatile language and, to add to your list of qualities, it can be used both to get precise information across and to write beatiful prose and poetry. So, please replace "English" in my first post with "Spanish", "French", "Russian" or "Mandarin Chinese".
I'm not sure we live in the same "real world". I agree with you on the point that some people who take an "academic" view tend to ignore the harsh economic reality of the real world. I have also learned from personal experience that the "best deisgn" is worthless if it isn't based on time/resources/cost factors.
On the other hand, up to 90% of my time is spent on helping companies recover from these "quick fixes" that turned out to be neither quick nor a fix. I should be happy: I get paid well for this, but my clients are not as enthusiastic. I have seen many quick fix solutions and with one or two exceptions none of them have solved the problem on time and budget.
In almost any other business, the people responsible for buying or delivering these solutions would be fired immediately for incompetence. But we are allowed to make the same mistakes over and over again without taking the slightest hint from our academic friends...
Using your argumentation for the syntax of C, you could also claim that English is the best natural language. The fact that a lot of people have learned the syntax, and therefore have an easier time adapting other languages with a similar syntax, doesn't say anything about the quality of the syntax. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that programmers are lazy and can't be bothered to learn new languages. If you really want a language that is the "perfect starting point for making a more powerful language" I'd recommend Forth;)
Even if I wouldn't go so far as to say that quality is free, I think that "the eric conspiracy" hit the spot there.
If you can find some way of showing a reasonable estimate for the cost of producing low quality code, and present that to the managers in a way that will elt them use those ideas without losing face, then you have a chance. It's a combination of hitting 'em where it hurts (money) and letting managers look like they're in control. Hard... but not impossible...
Slashdot Mirror
I think we agree on most points, and I definitely agree that "neither politicians nor the public seem to care enough to make this a high profile issue." In the scope of the article, though, don't you think that some of the "holier-than-thou fuss about the NSA" might be a reaction to holier-than-thou statements like "the US government ... in its role as the 'caretaker' of the internet?"
I agree that other countries are doing the same thing. I don't think the main differences are the ones you listed, though.(1)NSA certainly have more resources than their counterparts in other countries, but I wouldn't automatically equal that to being "better at it". (2) People outside the US are making a fuss. The main difference from my POV is that most other democracies don't tout their spying as being "caretekers of the Internet" or "a bulwark against international terrorism". The spy and cheat and keep very quiet about it. When they get caught with their hands in someone else's cookie jar they do some low profile damage control and get back to business as usual.
Wait let me guess.... You don't have a college education do you? If you do, I'd ask for a refund, because your college expereince sounds lame. Or maybe you did go to college, and are attemptint to suggest that all collegs are as lame as your experience? See, if you had gotten a good education you would have been able to see the flaw in the logic before posting. Or maybe you just aren't "College material."
I do have a college education and I like to think I learned a lot of useful things there, so I won't ask for a refund. I met a lot of people at college that I would hire immediately if I had the chance today, and I think they also learned a thing or two. Most of them graduated, and a few dropped out.
But, and here's my point, I also met some people in college that graduated without showing any interest in learning something. They knew that a degree would help them get a certain job in a certain salary bracket and made sure that they learned enough to pass the exams. They were far from stupid and had some talent for pattern matching, but I wouldn't call them good engineer or scientist material.
So, unless a degree comes from the perfect university you obviously attended, I still claim that the degree only proves that you passed the exams, not that you actually learned anything. Feel free to attack the logic in that, and please try to be a little less of an anonymous asshole - I mean with your glorious education you should be above that.
The only skill a degree proves you have learned is how to pass exams. If passing exams is an essential part of your job description, then I guess a degree is invaluable.
... to take care of all the trash that doesn't want to go to Sweden.
... outside the U.S. and we're not telling :-P
Perhaps you could explain to us why this scenario is implausible. Otherwise shut the fuck up. Idiot.
There are several posts above that will do that for you, and I saw no need to repeat what is obvious for anyone with at least one working brain cell.
But since you ask so nicely: look up "Non sequitur" in your favorite encyclopedia.
A piece of advice for free: If you are going to call people idiots, please have the balls to do that without hiding behind an anonymous account.
A heated debate over an article from The Onion? /. was supposed to be "news for nerds" not "half baked conspiracy theories for complete fuckwits."
I thought
A clue for those of you who think you understand the legal system of Sweden from watching a few episodes of Law & Order or its foreign policy because you have managed to gather that Sweden is in Europe: Get a new tin foil hat and head to davidicke.com instead of posting crap here.
I thought the whole point of hiring a senior developer is that he doesn't behave like a rock star, even if some of them do look like Keith Richards...
A diplomatic answer. I'm impressed.
I would have said "stop being a fan and start being a professional".
I would never hire anyone who defines themselves as fan of any piece of technonolgy, software, process or IT guru unless I was 100% sure that this person would spend their time locked up in the basement working exclusively with the object of their fandom and never interact professionally with another human being.
There are many good suggestions on what to look for in a good Windows expert in other posts, so I'll just add one thing: Make sure that your interview includes questions about working in a heterogenous environment. You can't always do the things you're used to in a single-OS environment when you have to interact with systems running on a fundamentally different platform.
Ok... I probably don't understand what you're getting at here, but:
First of all: The subset of electronic musicians I was referring to are the ones that can't use the physical machines for some reason (can't afford, not enough room in the home studio, born a few decades too late, the real thing is in pieces after that last gig, etc.).
With that said: I can't see why anyone would need the UI they use to control or record from an actual, physical instrument the way you describe it to look anyway near the original.
If you use the actual instrument to control and record through MIDI, what use would a rendered approximation of what you actually have in front of you and at your fingertips be?
When you play live using any midi controller you hardly look at the screen, and when you do it's for visual feedback that probably would be much clearer if the information came in big glowing green digits instead of minute movements of a rendered knob on a dark wood background.
I completly agree with your last statement, but I can't see how it applies to how the UI.
In fact, I cannot come up with a single practical reason for the UI too like like it's physical counterpart, apart form initial familiarity with the controls if you've used the original. The only other reason I can see is the one I stated in my first post: It looks good!
The only type of software I've seen where this is the norm is music software, especially VST plugins.
I guess the thought behind this is: "If you emulate the sound of a classic synthesizer, why not emulate the look-and-feel of it as well?"
Of course it is easier for someone who has actually played the physical instrument to find the correct controls, but I think it's more a question of aesthetics than usability.
The idea has carried over to instruments and effects that have no physical counterpart: If you have an analogue-sounding synth you'll get knobs and patch cables ( moog style); if it's a FM synth you'll probably see a lot of labled push-buttons (Yamaha DX7) and so on.
Electronic musicians love their gadgets and now that we don't fiddle with actual knobs and sliders anymore, we still like to be reminded of them in the UI.
Still, I don't think this represent "an unwillingness to move forward". Maybe part nostalgia and part the fact that these devices looked great and inspired you to play them.
... and everybody will drop things on the pad to operate it, and that's why gravity or mass is relevant to this discussion. Right?
I think you can find several examples like that without much effort. That is not the point, though. I'm not claiming that the U.S. has no influence, positive or negative, on Sweden because it is obvious that they have.
The point is that escaping to Ecuador doesn't doesn't make sense if you want to get out of the reach of U.S. agencies who supposedly have the power to break the law in any country with impunity. It does make sense if you don't want to have the dirtier details of your sex life exposed in a Swedish court room, though...
Let's assume that the conspiracy theories are right for a second. Somehow U.S. agencies are behind the charges against Assange in Sweden and believe they have enough control over the Swedish judicial system, and in extension the Swedish government, to get him delivered into their hands.
Even if we assume that Sweden is an U.S. lapdog, we're still talking about a relatively open society, so this might be harder to do than in some other countries, but for the argument's sake: They really want to get Assange.
Knowing all this, what does Assange do? Try to escape to Ecuador, of course, because the same agencies who managed to arrange the situation in Sweden will have no chance of getting to him there. I mean, who have ever heard of U.S. clandestine operations in South America? And of course the government and courts of Ecuador is much less corrupt than those of Sweden.
Anyone else see a problem with this theory?
Perhaps just a strange choice of words, but you could get the impression that one of the raided providers is called "ISP". The only named provider I have heard mentioned is PRQ, who also hosts Wikileaks.
Smalltalk is not a religion, it is the language of the Illuminati. Smalltalkers laugh att the petty squabbles between supporters of the lesser languages, because we know the truth!
In any case we can always redefine what is #true...
People with degrees in CompSci are probably not as common here (Sweden) as where you are, but I have still worked with a lot of people who have a solid education in the fundamentals of computer science. Unfortunately, most of them have not have had a single chance to apply this knowledge since they left the university. Managers, sales people and clients usually have little or no knowledge about what the CompSci people can do, and therefore their skills are hardly ever needed.
Our main problem is that there is no reason why a client should pay a consultant with a degree in CompSci to do a job, when they can get the same work done for a fraction of that cost if they hire a self-taught independent contractor or turn to a "code factory" in Lithuania or India. We can never compete on a market where the only commodity is "quick fix solutions".
One thing I see happening right now is that both clients and the providers are getting aware of this situation and moving towards a more segmented market. On on hand you have the "skilled craftsmen" who can provide the quick solutions and repairs along with a solid experience with the tools neded to create these solutions. On the other hand you have the people with a more abstract or strategic approach to systems development, who can make sure that the contructed solutions satisfy customer needs and are efficient and easy to maintain. The CompSci people should not even bother with the first category, because they are overqualified in one sense and usually not specialized enough to be efficient in another. In a more strategic role, though, I really think that we can use our academic backgrounds to deliver value to our customers and that they are willing to pay for it.
I should have known better than to use that example on a forum where everyone writes in English, and a majority seem to be native anglophones :)
English is a very versatile language and, to add to your list of qualities, it can be used both to get precise information across and to write beatiful prose and poetry.
So, please replace "English" in my first post with "Spanish", "French", "Russian" or "Mandarin Chinese".
I'm not sure we live in the same "real world".
I agree with you on the point that some people who take an "academic" view tend to ignore the harsh economic reality of the real world. I have also learned from personal experience that the "best deisgn" is worthless if it isn't based on time/resources/cost factors.
On the other hand, up to 90% of my time is spent on helping companies recover from these "quick fixes" that turned out to be neither quick nor a fix. I should be happy: I get paid well for this, but my clients are not as enthusiastic. I have seen many quick fix solutions and with one or two exceptions none of them have solved the problem on time and budget.
In almost any other business, the people responsible for buying or delivering these solutions would be fired immediately for incompetence. But we are allowed to make the same mistakes over and over again without taking the slightest hint from our academic friends...
Using your argumentation for the syntax of C, you could also claim that English is the best natural language. The fact that a lot of people have learned the syntax, and therefore have an easier time adapting other languages with a similar syntax, doesn't say anything about the quality of the syntax. The only conclusion you can draw from this is that programmers are lazy and can't be bothered to learn new languages. ;)
If you really want a language that is the "perfect starting point for making a more powerful language" I'd recommend Forth
If you can find some way of showing a reasonable estimate for the cost of producing low quality code, and present that to the managers in a way that will elt them use those ideas without losing face, then you have a chance. It's a combination of hitting 'em where it hurts (money) and letting managers look like they're in control. Hard... but not impossible...