There have certainly been improvements in software development, but they generally only address yesterday's problems. That is, as one improves the process, instead of making life easier, the complexity of the project simply increases.
My personal theory is that the complexit/hardness of software development is more or less constant. Putting together that "monsterous" 1000 line COBOL program yesterday was probably just about as hard as today's 100,000 line Java program.
After the 1000 line COBOL program, you have to do better, add more features and use a richer model. This entails increased complexity. While you may have gained valuable knowledge, skills, and new techniques in making your 1000 line COBOL program, now it's time to move on to the next level. The new stuff you developed helps you get to that next level, but you end up working just as hard, and the problem is just as difficult.
I think it has more to do with the perception of voice dication as unreliable and resource intensive rather than any actual fact, as the poster points out, it can be done fairly cheaply.
I have not had much experience, but I think the other thing is that people are averse to any sort of training or teaching required, no matter the long term dividents.
Like most things, it comes down not to fact, but to perception and prejuidice. Most people base their buying decisions on 30-second spots, not informed research, so the cost of educating people to is too high for producers to incur.
The problem ends up being more of an economic one than a technical one, and could be very serious. I'm not talking about doctors becoming obsolete, I'm talking about a breakdown in market forces that intices peopel to the profession.
My original posting was done at work, so was limited, but to expand on the idea, it goes like this. Robotic/machine/semi-automated surgery becomes commonplace (and I'm talking many decades here). Because of this, demand for a fully trained doctor decreases. People can use computer programs and home diagnostic equipment, standard operations are now mostly automated, with many procedures not even requiring an atending physician (those where an error or complication would not introduce greater risk and need not be dealt with immediately).
This wouldn't mean that we wouldn't still need doctors, it would mean that doctors don't get paid as much. Insurance is already through the roof and many doctors routinely refuse to deliver babies or perform certain procedures where the likely hood of a suit is much greater. If machines speed up procedures, then even with greater reliability, the overall incidence of complication (especially since many complications are due to patient factors) might not decrease, and the net effect would be a wash (I'm assuming the doctor population goes down).
Why does the doctor population go down? Because insurance costs and costs of doing business are unlikely to decrease (indeed, with all this equipment, they'll likely increase), while pay, respect, and power decrease.
Certain types of doctors will still be in high demand, but, I'm saying that there are certain scernarios where the overall number of doctors decreases to problematic levels.
It sounds great to me. Less recovery time, less trauma, more precision, etc. It probably won't be long till it's faster. Similar systems will probably start to provide all sorts of services. Eventually, you might begin to carry such things on capital ships and cruise liners, have "emergency stations" at rest stops that can repair heart attack damage instantly, etc.
Just like Star Trek. Which brings me to my concern. I can't really envision Dr. McCoy jumping in there. Once such systems are commonplace, will the doctor eventually become a mere medical technician? In 50 years, will the guy watching the surgery know what to do when MS Surgery blue screens?
Not that the percentages might be better, humans make mistakes too, but I'd hate to see the profession suffer. If nothing else, it will decrease the demand and even the perceived need for highly skilled surgeons (well into the future, of course). This could cause a shortage in which it really is just a sys-admin watching Dr. Roboto tinker with your innards, ignorant of what the hell is going on.
Three things, first, the convenience, cost, and taste *are* indeed the biggest factors why people eat fast food. Desensitization (I'm glad you like that, I pondered it for a bit), in this case, is a minor factor, but still enough to sway some people.
Also, the effect of what is going on may be primarily through some other mechanism, but McDonald's does believe that, somehow, it will convince people who otherwise wouldn't to buy their product. Admitedly, most of these people would simply be eating Mcdonald's instead of Burger King, but still.
I myself don't think that this particular instance of... virtual endorsement is such a big deal, but one can extend it to more serious things. Except, as another poster pointed out, that it is kind of a big deal to children who don't know any better to care about fast food. If the game encourages them to eat fast food, then they do not have the knowledge to take the information that the game is feeding them (McDonald's food is good for you) with a grain of salt.
Finally, I'm all for free markets and business and such, and have no problems with ads. Even spam doesn't bother me that much (but I don't run a public mailserver either...). But, TV commercials, billboards, spam, etc. are blatantly ads. You're prepared, in your mind, to evaluate them in context. Such "hidden" advertising is somewhat worrisome, and it's getting very prevalent in society.
I think maybe what I want to say is that you know an ad is fiction. The goodness of a product will be inflated, and you expect this. You understand that the "most insane savings ever" are probably merely pretty good savings and that allergy drugs do not imbue you with the ability to fly, nor does Coke bring joy to your heart and peace to the world.
But, the more subtle an ad becomes, like with product placement, you're not as prepared. You don't necessarily think that maybe that actor hates Coke, but is being paid to drink it. The image just goes into your "unguarded" mind. Now, when you alter the reality of a virtual world, that's another level. Here, it's pretty blatant, but, like my example, you could hide your alterations pretty easily and slowly, subtly, and powerfully alter people's perceptions of the real world.
Not that you'll convince (sane) people they can fly, but you can swing votes, hide problems, invent problems, etc. Powerful companies that are hooked in would become more powerful, etc.
I don't think this is the end of the world anymore than anything else, but it is something that people should be aware of, and be on guard for.
Definetly. McDonald's whole strategy, which I do consider very ethical questionable, is to target children so that they'll be more likely to remain customer's as adults and bring their children in. This is the (sick) genius behind the Happy Meal and their plethora cartoonish mascots.
Children are, generally, more sucseptiple (sp?) to such tactics.
Yeah, I was going to use that as my example, but that it brings in a whole lot of other issues that I didn't have time. I myself like side-scrolling fighters, though I do find Grand Theft Auto *very* disturbing.
Not that it's a defense, these things do have their problems, but if the message is *too* blatent, it's not as effective. A subtle suggestion that hamburgers are good for you may actually be more effective than the suggestion that it's okay to kill.
The problem is, of course, that even if the suggestion is much less effective, the results are much more catastrophic when it *is* effective.
There's a lot more to it, in both, cases of course. Ah... if only I didn't have to earn money.
Ha! I think you're correct, there is really not much rational for "protesting" per se. It's not really a moral issue... well, maybe in a round about way.
There is something interesting happenning, though. By encouraging people to act a certain way and getting a reward, even if it is in an fake world, it does have consequences in the real world. Here, it's not *so* bad. It might encourage people to get fat (in the real world).
The problem is that a reward is a reward. While buying a virtual hamburger is not the same as buying a rela hamburger, the actions are related. The cause-effect is not direct, but it is real. Studies have shown as much (which I should cite, but I'm at work now and shouldn't take too much of my employer's time... maybe after I get home). McDonald's certainly thinks there's a link, or they would not have made the deal.
What happens is that people get desensitized to the concern's about bad fast food. While this case is rather innocuous, as online games like this get bigger, and attract more people and interest, one must be more aware of the effect. What if they made a deal with the Republicans where you got a better rating by voting Republican? Or, more subtley, whenever a Republican ruled the virtual world, things were great, and when a Democrat was in charge, your pretent economy tanked. Likely few would even notice, and the ones that did would be discounted, but the effects could be very real.
A thousand votes either way...
Re:Wonderful (I was skeptical at first...)
on
Fun With Wine
·
· Score: 1
Oh, I'm well aware of how wine functions. I developed high-end commercial software for about two years that incorporated various emulation techniques for a number of purposes.
I found, when thinking about capabilities, that worry too much about the distinctions of how you run code for one platform on another wasn't very helpful. No matter how you do it, through various kinds of emulation, library replacement, different kinds of encapsulation, or whatever, it really doesn't matter in the thoeritical realm. They are all equivalent as they can all do exactly the same thing and have exactly the same functionality.
Now, there are many many practical reasons why different techniques are superior, but I was only speaking of possible applications of functionality, not implementation of those features, so, it as far as my comments go, it doesn't *matter* whether Wine replaces Window's libraries, or is a virtual machine, etc. The former is usually faster, but march harder to get right while the latter is, technically, fairly simple to do, while it is often very slow to run.
Though not always. It's a fascinating and often misunderstood field.
Re:Wonderful (I was skeptical at first...)
on
Fun With Wine
·
· Score: 1
As I read the first sentence of the main post, I thought, "well... that's dumb." But then, I realized that it wasn't. Like it says a bit later on, being able to do things like this is indicative of maturity and robustness. It's not that useful (yet) in-and-of-itself, but it's an indicating that things are starting to solidify.
Doing weird, technical things like this that are far beyond a projects original scope indicates that the project itself has matured, and is growing past it's original scope. The neat thing, is that it's doing so almost as a side effect.
Besides, I think truly useful things will come of this before too long. Virtual machines within a machine is useful for lots of things. Application firewalling, stress testing, deployment testing on various platforms, etc.
I don't disagree at all. I said that this would begin to push others more to service. With each new thing that you can get for free that works just as well as what other's charge for, you capture a little bit more of the market. This alone, and what has been developed to date, will not push IBM out, nor is everything that needs to be done for such things as you say been done. But it's a step.
I'm not talking now, nor even tomorrow, but in 5-10 years, I think we could see a very different landscape in how old school commercial software and hardware companies (or, in IBM's case, departments) work.
If you can spend $1 million on developing your whizzy new file system, or you can use something that's freely available (or spend $100,000 to tweak it), then the economics of it start to push people out of commercial development in some areas, especially around OS and OS functionality. Instead, you just consult, or deploy, or support and such.
Nice to see Linux doing good on big machines with standard packages and such. I love linux, and it's the only thing I use at home for anything serious, but commercial software has always had the edge on *big* things (big disks, large processes, etc.). With recent advances in process management, and now this, a lot more people will be able to use Linux top to bottom.
I think one interesting thing that could come out of this is that IBM (and others) will be pushed more and more towards a pure service or application only niche. They won't always be able to say, "Sure Linux is great for the workstation, but what about your 8 TB database?" There's a ways to go, but a lot of the features are falling into place.
Having a unified OS from your palmtop to your TB file server will open up a lot of possibilities for people. My personal interest is in a next level of integration which is more natural to use and easier to develop, and we're getting close.
Re:Are we diverging, or converging... I can't tell
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
What I meant is that no matter how ugly you may find those billboards, you are not the person who can decide what other people place on their property.
Would it be fair to say that you "should" be able to demand that they not spam you? I agree with that. What I meant was that, empirically, you can't. I agree that this indicates that the world is not perfect, and could be better, but my meaning was simply that if someone sends you spam, and you can't stop them, then you can't stop them. So, maybe it should be your call to make, but, empirically, it isn't.
I see your point about open relays. Most of my experience has been with closed systems, and my home systems, so the potential for such abuse was much less. That is a serious problem that I did not give sufficient weight to in my original statements.
Learn something new every day. Excellent.
Re:Annoyance does not equal invasion of privacy
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
This doesn't exactly apply, though. See, my principles (on this specific issue) revolve around not invading someone's privacy, or more to the point, not annoying them.
I agree, the parallel is not perfect, but there are applications. I don't want to get mired in anologies, though.
You're more or less advocating a "do unto others" policy, and I respect that, and would hope that I myself live by that ideal as well. But, I also know that I can't force others to "do unto me as I'd do unto them." I'll be nice to them, and they might not be nice to me. I'm not arguing with you here, I'm just saying, just as that is the way it is with the world in general, so it is with spam.
So because it's not at the top of your list, it makes it acceptable?
Thanks for asking this question. I think my answer is no, it does not. Remember, I said other issues come first, and that I saw spam as a minor thing, I never said it didn't matter. Basically, my view is this. I can draw up a list of all the things wrong in the world. Now, I'll order them by how much they matter to me, for whatever reasons (principles, direct effect, etc.). Now, some of these things, I have no hope of changing. Of the rest, there is still far more to do than I have time or energy to address. So, at some point, I more or less draw a line and say, "I'm not going to worry about these issues right now." The list is fluid, as is my time and energy, so things will move around.
I say I think my answer is no, because if you mean, is spamming acceptable in a perfect world? No. It is not *right* in so far as it is fundamentally an abusive thing. I never said it wasn't. Which brings me the second answer. If you mean, is it practially acceptable, then my answer is yes. Because this nations tax/eduaction/social/political systems are far, far more abusive and have far greater consequences for many more people, so, given the choice, I'd lobby for reform in these areas rather than an all out attack on spam. Would I sign a petition on spam, would I vote for a good law on the subject? Sure. But to me, it's not so bad that I'd crusade against it, not because it's not a "worthy" cause, but because there are other crusades to be fought.
As for making a living with spam, I am always loathe to judge other people. While I will easily admit that spam is, on the whole, a bad thing, and most spammers are probably... without strong civic understanding, I won't go so far as to say a particular spammer is a bad person. Or even that their spamming is bad. If it's the only thing to put food on their table, then good luck to 'em. I hope a penis enlargement craze sweeps the country so they can get enough money to get out of the business.
Are we diverging, or converging... I can't tell...
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
If those billboards are on city (public) property, the city is compensated for it and can do useful things with the money (for you and other people). If it's on private property, the owners of that property have givens their conscent to place those billboards there. You may not like the view, but whether or not they can place their billboards there is not your call to make.
And also payment of TV commercials supporting channels that you mentioned, I don't disagree with any of this. I never did. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer by saying "I am not adequeately compensated." I suppose there is some compensation, but I don't feel that the benefits outweigh the costs. As I pointed out somewhere in this thread, the question is and never was really, "is there benefit?" it's always been, "does the benefit outweigh the cost." I'm, for me, no. Just like you mind spam a whole bunch, and I don't, I mind billboards a whole bunch, and you don't.
I've never argued that there's anything wrong disliking spam intensly, or disliking the people that do it. These are opinions, and you're welcome to them. But, understand that not everyone has them. Just like you don't seem to mind TV commercials or billboards very much, I mind them a lot.
You may not like the view, but whether or not they can place their billboards there is not your call to make. Spammers don't ask me or my ISP anything before they put their spam in my mailbox aren't paying either of us for it either.
I agree, it is not my call to make. But, like it or not, getting spam in your mailbox is not your call to make either. Admitedly, you could threaten to drop your ISP unless they block all spam for you, and never shop anywhere or do anything with anyone unless you have an iron clad guarantee that they will not sell your name out to some list, so maybe it is your call. But, I could also buy up all of east Texas, and then move there and never place myself so that my visual horizon is beyond land I own... so I guess, billboards are also my call. But, neithre reality is practical, so, just as I must subjected to billboards, so must you be subjected to spam.
Don't make the assumption that my values are the same as your's. I'm not saying you shouldn't mind spam, my only point (and I'll get back to this in a moment) is that spam is not evil.
As for spammers paying, that's exactly why I brought up the billboard and TV analogy. They're not paying you or your ISP, but they are paying their ISP. Someone is getting compensated. I really don't see why you have the right to expect payment for receiving an email while I cannot want to be compensated for being forced to gaze upon often disturbing eye sores and pathetic vignettes of modern life, or have my own view blocked by obstructions erected by others. (Indeed, there was a time where you would have to compensate me for blocking my view. The concept of "ancient ligths" as it's known is a precedent much older than the "do what you will with your land" idea. These concepts are not fixed, but fluid things.)
Yes, and if you secure your house well enough, burglaries will be rare. That doesn't mean you shouldn't complain when it does happen. The fact that you can protect your property against abuse and as such limit the abuse, doesn't make the abuse a non-issue imho.
I never said, or even implied, that abuse of spam was a non-issue. I only assert that it's a relatively minor issue. For me, very minor, and I think far more minor than many on this thread make it sound, even to the one's for whom it is most serious. Also, I would say that the flaw in the burglary analogy is that if I am robbed, then I have been denied use of my property. I have never heard of a case where spam was so bad that a user actually lost the use, or a resource was even significantly impaired. I have no doubt that it *sometimes happens,* but would argue that it's really not that common, and not really a big deal. I suppose you could say that the spam occupies some of your bits on your hard drive, but only temporarily and in such a minor fashion that to wring your hands over that aspect of spam would be pointless.
Indeed, I could say that I am being "robbed" when someone is walking their dog and the animal crosses my property line. The dog would be occupying space that I own for a small period of time, but I'm not going to consider them evil for doing so. Just like with your hard drive, the space is completely recoverable and I can live with the momentary intrusion. Indeed, the dog is likely to be more destructive as he may dig or crap in my yard. An email can be deleted with narry a care.
Oh puh-lease. This is like saying "If you thing the WTC towers burning down and 3000 people being killed was evil, talk to someone who survived the concentration camps in WWII or some child soldier in Rwanda that has been forced to kill its own parrents".
I don't agree. I think we can say there's a difference between murder and spam, but I really don't see a fundamental difference between your examples. Obviously we are using evil in different terms. As you say, it's a bit strong. Understand, that for me "evil" is a very serious term, and I am merely saying that it should not be used lightly. Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty of it myself, but labeling things "evil" can be dangerous. It gives us license to do and say things that we ought not be doing. Evil, to me, is something that should, without question, be destroyed. So, if a spammer is evil, then we have license to kill them. Because I'm not willing to accept that, I can't accept that they are evil. For me, there is no "more evil" or "less evil," evil is not even related to "good" and "bad." Evil is the reason why there's hunger when we can produce the food. Evil is the reason why good people do bad things. In such a context, I just can't see spam as being as important as all that.
Finally, regarding the arrogance of spammers, I agree, without reservation. Here, maybe we come to the crux of it. I dislike arrogance as well, but I never viewed the mother raising her children as arrogant, I think she just doesn't care, doesn't see it as that big of a deal. Maybe she's wrong, I'll grant, but arrogance is an active quality. You cannot be passively arrogant. For you to be a spammer, you'd have to be arrogant. For me to be a spammer, I'd have to be arrogant (or desparate, I would spam you if I would starve otherwise, sorry...), but, remembering that our stay-at-home mom spammer has a different point of view and a different context, she need not be arrogant. Thus, she is perhaps deserving of pity, or your tears (for her ignorance), but I doubt she is really deserving of your anger. She may indeed hurt you at some level, but she knows this not. At worst, she thinks she is annoying you.
Yes, there are definetly arrogant spammers. There are also, probably, evil spammers. I'm just saying that spammers themselves are not evil simply because they are spammers. I would imagine that moste just... don't know any better. But, while ignorance can be a breeding ground for evil, one who is ignorant of the effect of their actions cannot do evil, for evil, like arrogance, I assert is a willful thing.
There is probably a bit of truth somewhere in this statement, but there are some real problems with it too. Perhaps this is the view of a system administrator, but it does not match my experience as a developer. I enjoy technology, but at the end of the day I'm being paid to accomplish things. Technology is merely a tool that helps you accomplish your goal. There are a lot of reasons why people can enjoy their job, and why they should seek out new technology. Speaking from experience, boredom is rarely solved by new technology, it usually has it roots elsewhere.
I think you misunderstood me. I think it could have been a little clearer. I'm pretty sure we're actually agreeing here, let me know if we're not.
What I meant with "bored and moved on" that the better programmer will want to learn many technologies. That staying in a single technology and doing nothing else for 5 years (ultra-specializing) is the sign of someone, often, doesn't really have that fire for tech. I couldn't stand to be using the same OS version, on the same machine, with the same window manager, running the same applications in 5 years. I need to see and try new things.
Again, with the language, I could have been clearer. What I mean with 98% is not that you'll know 98% of everything there is to know about it, but that you'll know 98% of everything you use typically. Even here, there's a bit of hyperbole, so don't hold me right to it. Let me give an example.
In JButton, in Java, there are probably 200+ methods. These allow the most minute control over the look of a button, from changing it's size, to the color, to focus order, and doing all the varioous callbacks defined at all points in the Swing framework. To learn everything, and exactly how it works would probably take a number of months to master.
But, what you need to know to use JButton is really only "setText()." Now, know how to add it to a container, and a little bit about layouts, and you're more or less done with a huge hunk of everything you'll use most of the time.
When I say "pick up," I mean that 98% that you'll use 98% of the time. Probaly 80% of any given, complex API is stuff you'll only use 2% of the time. So, you can learn that 20% fast. Then you'll have 98% of what you'll use. I agree completely that to "master" a language is a long, time consuming effort, but master knowledeg is accessed far less than basic knowledge...: "When we speak, we say 'is' a lot more than 'egregious.'
With applied cryptography, I agree. That's not really what I was thinking of when I said to technology. I was speaking more to Java, Perl, Weblogic, XML, things like that. I would call cryptography a specialized knowledge field. Indeed, it's a lot of high level math and extremerly specialized knowledge. It produces technologies like PGP and SSL, but again, those technologies are pretty easy to get the basics of. "Oh, you can sign, encrypty, verify... thise one uses third parties, and this one doesn't... okay..." To "pick up" SSL, you don't need to know how DES works or why this complex modding thing is hard to work backwards. That's hard. Knowing to get a cert, check it's signature, that's easy.
I wouldn't say one could learn the science behind SSL or PGP in a few days anymore than I would say you could become a qualified surgeon in a few days.
I think we're more or less in agreement. My comment with languages may have been a bit of hyperbole, but my basic point was that if someone is already an expert programmer (implying that they are expert in general design, system concepts, and understanding of how things all work together, etc.), then such a person only needs to learn syntax, and thus, as you syntax quick.
For instance, when I am making a system and I think, "Oh, I need to connect over a standard ethernet network using TCP/IP." I know that, no matter what the language is, I need to find some library or package to manage sockets, and maybe a SOAP implementation or something. Understanding like that is 90% of the battle. In any language that you'd actually be using, I know that support for, or at least some instructions of how to do such things is possible. Therefore, all I need to know is syntax.
So, essentially, I'm saying if you know all these concepts, and at least one API in a lot of fields really well, you know what is possible and what makes sense. That's the most important thing. And, since many reasonable things are going to be done more or less the same way, you know a lot of the API (or at least all the ideas behind it) already.
With regard to learning OSes, remember I said a "better" programmer:)
(though I have met some good guys working primarily on Windows, it's where the money is, so maybe there's some smarts to that after all...)
As for expert vs. non-expert skills and resumes, I never really intended for the original post to sound as if I was advocating inflation of actual skills, though I see how it might come across that way. My real intention was something like, if I know synchronized multri-threading in Java, then I know how to do threading, basically, in C. So, even though I would say I was mediocre at best in C, I would list it on my resume. I don't list "skill levels" in my resume, because I think that detracts from my real skills.
Most employers look for "code factories" to churn out lines of text. So, there biggest concern is "who's the fastest code factory around?" But, I think we both know that the most important thing is not being able to avoid a lookup in a reference book, which, while an somewhat costly operation, is much more costly than flat misunderstanding of good system design.
So, I focus on what I have done and say as little as possible about technologies. My accomplishments speak much more to how good I am a programmer than my knowledge of whether Sun is big endian or not, or if you can have a static private inner class or not.
If my interview is all about syntax minutia, then I know it's a company I *don't* want to work for anyway. And, if I get asked a question like, "How do you synchronize two threads to read and write multi-word data safely, in C?" I'd say, well, the point of is to make sure that no thread can read data that may have only been partly changed. C is pretty low level stuff, so, there's libraries to do this many ways. There's simple semaphore's, their's p()/v() semantics, and... oh, you know, the one like Java where you can declare "areas safe to work in..." you know, it's a general term? Anyway, there's libraries for each..."
So, by the time I'm done, their impressed enough that they don't worry about the fact that I can't pull the syntax for any of those libraries from memory.
This focuses on one's strengths as a system designer, one who understands problems and how to fix them. I'm saying, prove that to someone, and if they still care whether you can name 15 major differences between SQL-92 and 99 or recall instantly all the methods in the JINI interface, and which throw what exceptions, then your dealing with someone who has their priorities a little out of whack.
First off, there's no need to call me an idiot (or imply such). I support, and would invite feverent disagreement. If I'm wrong, I'd want to know why. I certainly understand your passion if 20% of your bandwidth is utilized by spam, but that is no excuse. You do not know me, you do not know my full argument or context of my reasoning. It would be impossible for me to provide such. I would expect brusqness, and don't care much for tact myself, but it is foolishness to read some half off-hand, 100 word posting about a trivial subject and conclude such things about people.
Now, onto the response.
There are benefits to commercials, but there are also benefits to spam. Those spammers have to buy computers, have a connection of some sort, pay some ISP something. This all supports the internet in general. The real question, is, whether the benefit outweighs the cost. With spam, it may very well. I, however, would argue the same for commercials. Except for one show, I only watch public telivision. It's not because I dislike commercial TV shows, there are many I love, but I don't want my time wasted by commercials.
You say 20% of your bandwidth is wasted by spam? Super. 25% of my time watching commercial TV is wasted by commercials. I haven't been compensated, and my time is about the most precious thing I have.
Secondly, I cannot believe your situation is common. Perhaps it is, and if I'm wrong I want to know. But I know that only about 5% of my email is spam. Besides that, while a lot of email bandwidth (your running an mail server) may be consumed by spam, I know that email constitutes much less than a percent of my total bandwidth useage. I would guess it's closer to.001% So, even if 20% of all email is spam, 20% of.001% is just not that big a deal.
Finally, yes, in the extreme taking something from someone can be evil. But, commercials take my time. Dogs crapping in my yard take my valuable yard space. Personally, I call this annoying, and I file spam somewhere below the dog because it just doesn't matter that much to me.
Your situation is obviously different, but it is neither canonical, nor the only point of view. Personally, I think politicians taking my money to kill people and twist the truth to their own ends is much closer to evil. Corporate execs lying and stealing money for their own gain, now we're getting somewhere. Someone intentionally takes someone's life, that's evil.
If you call a few unwanted 1s and 0s bounced off your router "evil," then perhaps I have very flawed conception of the world, but it seems to me that you must lead a very pampered life indeed.
I'm not saying you should be a spammer. I don't want to be a spammer. If it violates your principles do so, certainly, don't do it.
*But* it violates my principles to eat meat, and I would rather no one did, for I honestly believe that all living things have value, but I'm not going to force that on anyone. I may be wrong. It may be just for me. I don't know, so I'm not going to call you evil for killing what I would consider a sacred and holy creature. (BTW, yes, plant life is sacred as well, but, in the great ironies of the universe, life requires death, and so I simply choose to cause as little death as I can and accept that.)
But, if I'm not going to call someone evil for eating meat (or hunting, or whatever), I find it hard to believe that spam is such a big deal.
As for "invasion of privacy," I really don't understand that at all. I'm not trying to be argumentative, or attacking here, it just really doesn't seem like that big a deal. Maybe I'm wrong--if I am, I'd like to find that out.
But a spammer has stolen no information about you (no more than the ISP, your phone company, or a million other organizations). So, if they're evil for getting your email address, then so is just about every commercial enterprise and everyone that works for them (which I assume includes you). If you mean that actually sending you an email is the invasion of privacy, I really don't understand that. Privacy, here, may be:
(form dictoinory.com)
1. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
2. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
Certainly, it does not violate 1, which is the usual meaning. It kind of violates 2, but to a much lesser degree than a TV ad, or even having other people around. I find having to sit next to someone at the movie much more intrusive than I do little bits on my hard drive that get silently deleted by my email filters.
But hey, that's me.
Some people certainly go to far in pursuit of "making a living," and I am all for a principled life. But, in the perfect world, there would be no hunger, no murder, and respect for everyone. Would the world be better if spamming weren't here? Sure. But where does that rank on the scale of things I would change about the world? Maybe not at the bottom, but there are certainly many, many, far more pressing issues to come first.
Whoa! I think I'll have to risk my karma further on this one.
First off, I don't understand why spam can't be regulated. Remember, is does not equal can. It certainly can be regulated. Laws can be passed that prohibit it. You may now say, "Ah, but what about other countries?" Well, if they don't agree to a common, basic set of regulations which we deem necessary and correct, we just bounce all their traffic. Easy enough.
I have four email addresses, I get spam to exactly one of them. I use filters on that one. What actually gets through to me? One spam a month. How much porn have I seen? None. That's the easiest to filter.
Hey, looks like I regulated it myself even.
In fact, I have much more control over spam than I do over any other form of advertising. I'm personally far more offended by political attack ads I get over my TV than by penis enlargement (which I don't get anyway).
Now, I agree whole heartedly that children should be protected from certain material, and spam should be regulated. But, the fact that it is not is not the fault of the spammers, it's the fault of the legislature and the populace.
Finally, and I've touched on this in more than one response already, if you think an email, which can be easily blocked, filtered, or deleted based simply on the title is "evil," then you really should get out more. Murder, war, destroying lives, these things are evil. Some nudie pics and silliness may be annoying, decadent, possibly without virtue, and maybe even morally corrupt but you lead a pampered life indeed if such things are your definition of "evil" is an offer to grow your cock a few inches.
Normal advertisers do not pay for the resources they use. Just like spammers, they pay for some, but not all. In fact, there are very few things where some free riding is not going on.
When a commercial is broadcast into my television, I have recieved no compensation for watching or being subjected to those ideas. They have paid for neither my television, my cable connection (if I had one), or, most importantly, my time. Surely you don't propose that inbox space, or the tiny fraction of bandwidth used by spam on your system is more valuable than your time? I think much more highly of my time than that.
Besides TV commercials, billboards obstruct my line of and deface my city and scenery (which is very certainly a resource). I am not compensated. Radio ads also take my time. Magazine ads also waste my time, for something I've already paid for. Flyers and posters not only deface my car and house, but cause litter and environmental damage. Same with mailed ads.
Now, on to spam. All those systems you speak have the ability to effectively block all spam activity, and to do so is typically not all that difficult. Sure, some will always get through, but you are surely not suggesting that an email or two a month (after proper steps have been taken) is anything to worry about?
Other advertisements have free rider problems too, which I agree is bad, but is also impossible to avoid. If you accept them, then I really don't see how you can argue against spam on that basis. The numbers just don't add up.
The only real difference I see is that if you don't like spam, you can get rid of it. Since this can be done at no cost, and fairly easily, I'll again state that it is, by far, the least "evil" of all advertisements forms.
And finally, if you think spam is "evil," you really should get out more. Talk to a WWII veteran, a murder victim, someone's who's house has burned down, or lost their dog. In fact, I'd rather get a spam here and there than stub my toe. I'm all for differing opinions and points of view, but to think spam is evil makes me think you must lead a *very* pampered existence.
True, but the, there are other factors which one must consider. To equate drug lords with spamming is great rhetoric, but not a very cogent argument. In any case, I assume that you're being tongue in cheek anyway, but it does bring up a good point.
Being basically a pure libretarian (people should be able to do anything they want so long as it interferes with no one else's lives), I do have *some* problem with Betty's chosen line of work. It does infringe on other's people's lives somewhat to have spam show up in their mailbox. Still, I can, and do, block spam very effectively. I maybe get one or two emails a month that slip through. There are very few things that interfere with my life any less than spam does.
There *are* some instances were spam is unacceptable, however. The drug lord example illustrates two. First, where what is being spammed is illegal, or there exist laws which make the spamming itself illegal. Two, targetting spam towards individuals who are not competent (mainly children) to distinguish BS from fact or exposing children to adult material (which I would consider a good reason to ban adult spam, especially where adult content is contained directly in the spam).
Spam can cross the line, but really, it usually doesn't. Turn off your cookies, only give out your Yahoo! address, and don't worry about it to much.
Slashdot Mirror
There have certainly been improvements in software development, but they generally only address yesterday's problems. That is, as one improves the process, instead of making life easier, the complexity of the project simply increases.
My personal theory is that the complexit/hardness of software development is more or less constant. Putting together that "monsterous" 1000 line COBOL program yesterday was probably just about as hard as today's 100,000 line Java program.
After the 1000 line COBOL program, you have to do better, add more features and use a richer model. This entails increased complexity. While you may have gained valuable knowledge, skills, and new techniques in making your 1000 line COBOL program, now it's time to move on to the next level. The new stuff you developed helps you get to that next level, but you end up working just as hard, and the problem is just as difficult.
I think it has more to do with the perception of voice dication as unreliable and resource intensive rather than any actual fact, as the poster points out, it can be done fairly cheaply.
I have not had much experience, but I think the other thing is that people are averse to any sort of training or teaching required, no matter the long term dividents.
Like most things, it comes down not to fact, but to perception and prejuidice. Most people base their buying decisions on 30-second spots, not informed research, so the cost of educating people to is too high for producers to incur.
As are lawyers, plumbers, dentists, and many of the professional professionals. I'm only talking a scernario, and a long term one at that.
The problem ends up being more of an economic one than a technical one, and could be very serious. I'm not talking about doctors becoming obsolete, I'm talking about a breakdown in market forces that intices peopel to the profession.
My original posting was done at work, so was limited, but to expand on the idea, it goes like this. Robotic/machine/semi-automated surgery becomes commonplace (and I'm talking many decades here). Because of this, demand for a fully trained doctor decreases. People can use computer programs and home diagnostic equipment, standard operations are now mostly automated, with many procedures not even requiring an atending physician (those where an error or complication would not introduce greater risk and need not be dealt with immediately).
This wouldn't mean that we wouldn't still need doctors, it would mean that doctors don't get paid as much. Insurance is already through the roof and many doctors routinely refuse to deliver babies or perform certain procedures where the likely hood of a suit is much greater. If machines speed up procedures, then even with greater reliability, the overall incidence of complication (especially since many complications are due to patient factors) might not decrease, and the net effect would be a wash (I'm assuming the doctor population goes down).
Why does the doctor population go down? Because insurance costs and costs of doing business are unlikely to decrease (indeed, with all this equipment, they'll likely increase), while pay, respect, and power decrease.
Certain types of doctors will still be in high demand, but, I'm saying that there are certain scernarios where the overall number of doctors decreases to problematic levels.
It sounds great to me. Less recovery time, less trauma, more precision, etc. It probably won't be long till it's faster. Similar systems will probably start to provide all sorts of services. Eventually, you might begin to carry such things on capital ships and cruise liners, have "emergency stations" at rest stops that can repair heart attack damage instantly, etc.
Just like Star Trek. Which brings me to my concern. I can't really envision Dr. McCoy jumping in there. Once such systems are commonplace, will the doctor eventually become a mere medical technician? In 50 years, will the guy watching the surgery know what to do when MS Surgery blue screens?
Not that the percentages might be better, humans make mistakes too, but I'd hate to see the profession suffer. If nothing else, it will decrease the demand and even the perceived need for highly skilled surgeons (well into the future, of course). This could cause a shortage in which it really is just a sys-admin watching Dr. Roboto tinker with your innards, ignorant of what the hell is going on.
I don't like the mortal combat series all that much. Mostly, I prefer the SNK stuff, with the little cartoonish sprites.
Dude, you misquotted me! Be careful where you put those tags.
Not that anyone cares, but I'm more or less Libretarian... but then I don't think any amount of manipulations in SimWorld would help me out...
Three things, first, the convenience, cost, and taste *are* indeed the biggest factors why people eat fast food. Desensitization (I'm glad you like that, I pondered it for a bit), in this case, is a minor factor, but still enough to sway some people.
Also, the effect of what is going on may be primarily through some other mechanism, but McDonald's does believe that, somehow, it will convince people who otherwise wouldn't to buy their product. Admitedly, most of these people would simply be eating Mcdonald's instead of Burger King, but still.
I myself don't think that this particular instance of... virtual endorsement is such a big deal, but one can extend it to more serious things. Except, as another poster pointed out, that it is kind of a big deal to children who don't know any better to care about fast food. If the game encourages them to eat fast food, then they do not have the knowledge to take the information that the game is feeding them (McDonald's food is good for you) with a grain of salt.
Finally, I'm all for free markets and business and such, and have no problems with ads. Even spam doesn't bother me that much (but I don't run a public mailserver either...). But, TV commercials, billboards, spam, etc. are blatantly ads. You're prepared, in your mind, to evaluate them in context. Such "hidden" advertising is somewhat worrisome, and it's getting very prevalent in society.
I think maybe what I want to say is that you know an ad is fiction. The goodness of a product will be inflated, and you expect this. You understand that the "most insane savings ever" are probably merely pretty good savings and that allergy drugs do not imbue you with the ability to fly, nor does Coke bring joy to your heart and peace to the world.
But, the more subtle an ad becomes, like with product placement, you're not as prepared. You don't necessarily think that maybe that actor hates Coke, but is being paid to drink it. The image just goes into your "unguarded" mind. Now, when you alter the reality of a virtual world, that's another level. Here, it's pretty blatant, but, like my example, you could hide your alterations pretty easily and slowly, subtly, and powerfully alter people's perceptions of the real world.
Not that you'll convince (sane) people they can fly, but you can swing votes, hide problems, invent problems, etc. Powerful companies that are hooked in would become more powerful, etc.
I don't think this is the end of the world anymore than anything else, but it is something that people should be aware of, and be on guard for.
Definetly. McDonald's whole strategy, which I do consider very ethical questionable, is to target children so that they'll be more likely to remain customer's as adults and bring their children in. This is the (sick) genius behind the Happy Meal and their plethora cartoonish mascots.
Children are, generally, more sucseptiple (sp?) to such tactics.
Yeah, I was going to use that as my example, but that it brings in a whole lot of other issues that I didn't have time. I myself like side-scrolling fighters, though I do find Grand Theft Auto *very* disturbing.
Not that it's a defense, these things do have their problems, but if the message is *too* blatent, it's not as effective. A subtle suggestion that hamburgers are good for you may actually be more effective than the suggestion that it's okay to kill.
The problem is, of course, that even if the suggestion is much less effective, the results are much more catastrophic when it *is* effective.
There's a lot more to it, in both, cases of course. Ah... if only I didn't have to earn money.
Ha! I think you're correct, there is really not much rational for "protesting" per se. It's not really a moral issue... well, maybe in a round about way.
There is something interesting happenning, though. By encouraging people to act a certain way and getting a reward, even if it is in an fake world, it does have consequences in the real world. Here, it's not *so* bad. It might encourage people to get fat (in the real world).
The problem is that a reward is a reward. While buying a virtual hamburger is not the same as buying a rela hamburger, the actions are related. The cause-effect is not direct, but it is real. Studies have shown as much (which I should cite, but I'm at work now and shouldn't take too much of my employer's time... maybe after I get home). McDonald's certainly thinks there's a link, or they would not have made the deal.
What happens is that people get desensitized to the concern's about bad fast food. While this case is rather innocuous, as online games like this get bigger, and attract more people and interest, one must be more aware of the effect. What if they made a deal with the Republicans where you got a better rating by voting Republican? Or, more subtley, whenever a Republican ruled the virtual world, things were great, and when a Democrat was in charge, your pretent economy tanked. Likely few would even notice, and the ones that did would be discounted, but the effects could be very real.
A thousand votes either way...
Oh, I'm well aware of how wine functions. I developed high-end commercial software for about two years that incorporated various emulation techniques for a number of purposes.
I found, when thinking about capabilities, that worry too much about the distinctions of how you run code for one platform on another wasn't very helpful. No matter how you do it, through various kinds of emulation, library replacement, different kinds of encapsulation, or whatever, it really doesn't matter in the thoeritical realm. They are all equivalent as they can all do exactly the same thing and have exactly the same functionality.
Now, there are many many practical reasons why different techniques are superior, but I was only speaking of possible applications of functionality, not implementation of those features, so, it as far as my comments go, it doesn't *matter* whether Wine replaces Window's libraries, or is a virtual machine, etc. The former is usually faster, but march harder to get right while the latter is, technically, fairly simple to do, while it is often very slow to run.
Though not always. It's a fascinating and often misunderstood field.
As I read the first sentence of the main post, I thought, "well... that's dumb." But then, I realized that it wasn't. Like it says a bit later on, being able to do things like this is indicative of maturity and robustness. It's not that useful (yet) in-and-of-itself, but it's an indicating that things are starting to solidify.
Doing weird, technical things like this that are far beyond a projects original scope indicates that the project itself has matured, and is growing past it's original scope. The neat thing, is that it's doing so almost as a side effect.
Besides, I think truly useful things will come of this before too long. Virtual machines within a machine is useful for lots of things. Application firewalling, stress testing, deployment testing on various platforms, etc.
I don't disagree at all. I said that this would begin to push others more to service. With each new thing that you can get for free that works just as well as what other's charge for, you capture a little bit more of the market. This alone, and what has been developed to date, will not push IBM out, nor is everything that needs to be done for such things as you say been done. But it's a step.
I'm not talking now, nor even tomorrow, but in 5-10 years, I think we could see a very different landscape in how old school commercial software and hardware companies (or, in IBM's case, departments) work.
If you can spend $1 million on developing your whizzy new file system, or you can use something that's freely available (or spend $100,000 to tweak it), then the economics of it start to push people out of commercial development in some areas, especially around OS and OS functionality. Instead, you just consult, or deploy, or support and such.
Nice to see Linux doing good on big machines with standard packages and such. I love linux, and it's the only thing I use at home for anything serious, but commercial software has always had the edge on *big* things (big disks, large processes, etc.). With recent advances in process management, and now this, a lot more people will be able to use Linux top to bottom.
I think one interesting thing that could come out of this is that IBM (and others) will be pushed more and more towards a pure service or application only niche. They won't always be able to say, "Sure Linux is great for the workstation, but what about your 8 TB database?" There's a ways to go, but a lot of the features are falling into place.
Having a unified OS from your palmtop to your TB file server will open up a lot of possibilities for people. My personal interest is in a next level of integration which is more natural to use and easier to develop, and we're getting close.
Would it be fair to say that you "should" be able to demand that they not spam you? I agree with that. What I meant was that, empirically, you can't. I agree that this indicates that the world is not perfect, and could be better, but my meaning was simply that if someone sends you spam, and you can't stop them, then you can't stop them. So, maybe it should be your call to make, but, empirically, it isn't.
I see your point about open relays. Most of my experience has been with closed systems, and my home systems, so the potential for such abuse was much less. That is a serious problem that I did not give sufficient weight to in my original statements.
Learn something new every day. Excellent.
I agree, the parallel is not perfect, but there are applications. I don't want to get mired in anologies, though.
You're more or less advocating a "do unto others" policy, and I respect that, and would hope that I myself live by that ideal as well. But, I also know that I can't force others to "do unto me as I'd do unto them." I'll be nice to them, and they might not be nice to me. I'm not arguing with you here, I'm just saying, just as that is the way it is with the world in general, so it is with spam.
Thanks for asking this question. I think my answer is no, it does not. Remember, I said other issues come first, and that I saw spam as a minor thing, I never said it didn't matter. Basically, my view is this. I can draw up a list of all the things wrong in the world. Now, I'll order them by how much they matter to me, for whatever reasons (principles, direct effect, etc.). Now, some of these things, I have no hope of changing. Of the rest, there is still far more to do than I have time or energy to address. So, at some point, I more or less draw a line and say, "I'm not going to worry about these issues right now." The list is fluid, as is my time and energy, so things will move around.
I say I think my answer is no, because if you mean, is spamming acceptable in a perfect world? No. It is not *right* in so far as it is fundamentally an abusive thing. I never said it wasn't. Which brings me the second answer. If you mean, is it practially acceptable, then my answer is yes. Because this nations tax/eduaction/social/political systems are far, far more abusive and have far greater consequences for many more people, so, given the choice, I'd lobby for reform in these areas rather than an all out attack on spam. Would I sign a petition on spam, would I vote for a good law on the subject? Sure. But to me, it's not so bad that I'd crusade against it, not because it's not a "worthy" cause, but because there are other crusades to be fought.
As for making a living with spam, I am always loathe to judge other people. While I will easily admit that spam is, on the whole, a bad thing, and most spammers are probably... without strong civic understanding, I won't go so far as to say a particular spammer is a bad person. Or even that their spamming is bad. If it's the only thing to put food on their table, then good luck to 'em. I hope a penis enlargement craze sweeps the country so they can get enough money to get out of the business.
And also payment of TV commercials supporting channels that you mentioned, I don't disagree with any of this. I never did. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer by saying "I am not adequeately compensated." I suppose there is some compensation, but I don't feel that the benefits outweigh the costs. As I pointed out somewhere in this thread, the question is and never was really, "is there benefit?" it's always been, "does the benefit outweigh the cost." I'm, for me, no. Just like you mind spam a whole bunch, and I don't, I mind billboards a whole bunch, and you don't.
I've never argued that there's anything wrong disliking spam intensly, or disliking the people that do it. These are opinions, and you're welcome to them. But, understand that not everyone has them. Just like you don't seem to mind TV commercials or billboards very much, I mind them a lot.
You may not like the view, but whether or not they can place their billboards there is not your call to make. Spammers don't ask me or my ISP anything before they put their spam in my mailbox aren't paying either of us for it either.I agree, it is not my call to make. But, like it or not, getting spam in your mailbox is not your call to make either. Admitedly, you could threaten to drop your ISP unless they block all spam for you, and never shop anywhere or do anything with anyone unless you have an iron clad guarantee that they will not sell your name out to some list, so maybe it is your call. But, I could also buy up all of east Texas, and then move there and never place myself so that my visual horizon is beyond land I own... so I guess, billboards are also my call. But, neithre reality is practical, so, just as I must subjected to billboards, so must you be subjected to spam.
Don't make the assumption that my values are the same as your's. I'm not saying you shouldn't mind spam, my only point (and I'll get back to this in a moment) is that spam is not evil.
As for spammers paying, that's exactly why I brought up the billboard and TV analogy. They're not paying you or your ISP, but they are paying their ISP. Someone is getting compensated. I really don't see why you have the right to expect payment for receiving an email while I cannot want to be compensated for being forced to gaze upon often disturbing eye sores and pathetic vignettes of modern life, or have my own view blocked by obstructions erected by others. (Indeed, there was a time where you would have to compensate me for blocking my view. The concept of "ancient ligths" as it's known is a precedent much older than the "do what you will with your land" idea. These concepts are not fixed, but fluid things.)
Yes, and if you secure your house well enough, burglaries will be rare. That doesn't mean you shouldn't complain when it does happen. The fact that you can protect your property against abuse and as such limit the abuse, doesn't make the abuse a non-issue imho.I never said, or even implied, that abuse of spam was a non-issue. I only assert that it's a relatively minor issue. For me, very minor, and I think far more minor than many on this thread make it sound, even to the one's for whom it is most serious. Also, I would say that the flaw in the burglary analogy is that if I am robbed, then I have been denied use of my property. I have never heard of a case where spam was so bad that a user actually lost the use, or a resource was even significantly impaired. I have no doubt that it *sometimes happens,* but would argue that it's really not that common, and not really a big deal. I suppose you could say that the spam occupies some of your bits on your hard drive, but only temporarily and in such a minor fashion that to wring your hands over that aspect of spam would be pointless.
Indeed, I could say that I am being "robbed" when someone is walking their dog and the animal crosses my property line. The dog would be occupying space that I own for a small period of time, but I'm not going to consider them evil for doing so. Just like with your hard drive, the space is completely recoverable and I can live with the momentary intrusion. Indeed, the dog is likely to be more destructive as he may dig or crap in my yard. An email can be deleted with narry a care.
Oh puh-lease. This is like saying "If you thing the WTC towers burning down and 3000 people being killed was evil, talk to someone who survived the concentration camps in WWII or some child soldier in Rwanda that has been forced to kill its own parrents".I don't agree. I think we can say there's a difference between murder and spam, but I really don't see a fundamental difference between your examples. Obviously we are using evil in different terms. As you say, it's a bit strong. Understand, that for me "evil" is a very serious term, and I am merely saying that it should not be used lightly. Don't get me wrong, I'm guilty of it myself, but labeling things "evil" can be dangerous. It gives us license to do and say things that we ought not be doing. Evil, to me, is something that should, without question, be destroyed. So, if a spammer is evil, then we have license to kill them. Because I'm not willing to accept that, I can't accept that they are evil. For me, there is no "more evil" or "less evil," evil is not even related to "good" and "bad." Evil is the reason why there's hunger when we can produce the food. Evil is the reason why good people do bad things. In such a context, I just can't see spam as being as important as all that.
Finally, regarding the arrogance of spammers, I agree, without reservation. Here, maybe we come to the crux of it. I dislike arrogance as well, but I never viewed the mother raising her children as arrogant, I think she just doesn't care, doesn't see it as that big of a deal. Maybe she's wrong, I'll grant, but arrogance is an active quality. You cannot be passively arrogant. For you to be a spammer, you'd have to be arrogant. For me to be a spammer, I'd have to be arrogant (or desparate, I would spam you if I would starve otherwise, sorry...), but, remembering that our stay-at-home mom spammer has a different point of view and a different context, she need not be arrogant. Thus, she is perhaps deserving of pity, or your tears (for her ignorance), but I doubt she is really deserving of your anger. She may indeed hurt you at some level, but she knows this not. At worst, she thinks she is annoying you.
Yes, there are definetly arrogant spammers. There are also, probably, evil spammers. I'm just saying that spammers themselves are not evil simply because they are spammers. I would imagine that moste just... don't know any better. But, while ignorance can be a breeding ground for evil, one who is ignorant of the effect of their actions cannot do evil, for evil, like arrogance, I assert is a willful thing.
There is probably a bit of truth somewhere in this statement, but there are some real problems with it too. Perhaps this is the view of a system administrator, but it does not match my experience as a developer. I enjoy technology, but at the end of the day I'm being paid to accomplish things. Technology is merely a tool that helps you accomplish your goal. There are a lot of reasons why people can enjoy their job, and why they should seek out new technology. Speaking from experience, boredom is rarely solved by new technology, it usually has it roots elsewhere.
I think you misunderstood me. I think it could have been a little clearer. I'm pretty sure we're actually agreeing here, let me know if we're not.
What I meant with "bored and moved on" that the better programmer will want to learn many technologies. That staying in a single technology and doing nothing else for 5 years (ultra-specializing) is the sign of someone, often, doesn't really have that fire for tech. I couldn't stand to be using the same OS version, on the same machine, with the same window manager, running the same applications in 5 years. I need to see and try new things.
Again, with the language, I could have been clearer. What I mean with 98% is not that you'll know 98% of everything there is to know about it, but that you'll know 98% of everything you use typically. Even here, there's a bit of hyperbole, so don't hold me right to it. Let me give an example.
In JButton, in Java, there are probably 200+ methods. These allow the most minute control over the look of a button, from changing it's size, to the color, to focus order, and doing all the varioous callbacks defined at all points in the Swing framework. To learn everything, and exactly how it works would probably take a number of months to master.
But, what you need to know to use JButton is really only "setText()." Now, know how to add it to a container, and a little bit about layouts, and you're more or less done with a huge hunk of everything you'll use most of the time.
When I say "pick up," I mean that 98% that you'll use 98% of the time. Probaly 80% of any given, complex API is stuff you'll only use 2% of the time. So, you can learn that 20% fast. Then you'll have 98% of what you'll use. I agree completely that to "master" a language is a long, time consuming effort, but master knowledeg is accessed far less than basic knowledge...: "When we speak, we say 'is' a lot more than 'egregious.'
With applied cryptography, I agree. That's not really what I was thinking of when I said to technology. I was speaking more to Java, Perl, Weblogic, XML, things like that. I would call cryptography a specialized knowledge field. Indeed, it's a lot of high level math and extremerly specialized knowledge. It produces technologies like PGP and SSL, but again, those technologies are pretty easy to get the basics of. "Oh, you can sign, encrypty, verify... thise one uses third parties, and this one doesn't... okay..." To "pick up" SSL, you don't need to know how DES works or why this complex modding thing is hard to work backwards. That's hard. Knowing to get a cert, check it's signature, that's easy.
I wouldn't say one could learn the science behind SSL or PGP in a few days anymore than I would say you could become a qualified surgeon in a few days.
I think we're more or less in agreement. My comment with languages may have been a bit of hyperbole, but my basic point was that if someone is already an expert programmer (implying that they are expert in general design, system concepts, and understanding of how things all work together, etc.), then such a person only needs to learn syntax, and thus, as you syntax quick.
:)
For instance, when I am making a system and I think, "Oh, I need to connect over a standard ethernet network using TCP/IP." I know that, no matter what the language is, I need to find some library or package to manage sockets, and maybe a SOAP implementation or something. Understanding like that is 90% of the battle. In any language that you'd actually be using, I know that support for, or at least some instructions of how to do such things is possible. Therefore, all I need to know is syntax.
So, essentially, I'm saying if you know all these concepts, and at least one API in a lot of fields really well, you know what is possible and what makes sense. That's the most important thing. And, since many reasonable things are going to be done more or less the same way, you know a lot of the API (or at least all the ideas behind it) already.
With regard to learning OSes, remember I said a "better" programmer
(though I have met some good guys working primarily on Windows, it's where the money is, so maybe there's some smarts to that after all...)
As for expert vs. non-expert skills and resumes, I never really intended for the original post to sound as if I was advocating inflation of actual skills, though I see how it might come across that way. My real intention was something like, if I know synchronized multri-threading in Java, then I know how to do threading, basically, in C. So, even though I would say I was mediocre at best in C, I would list it on my resume. I don't list "skill levels" in my resume, because I think that detracts from my real skills.
Most employers look for "code factories" to churn out lines of text. So, there biggest concern is "who's the fastest code factory around?" But, I think we both know that the most important thing is not being able to avoid a lookup in a reference book, which, while an somewhat costly operation, is much more costly than flat misunderstanding of good system design.
So, I focus on what I have done and say as little as possible about technologies. My accomplishments speak much more to how good I am a programmer than my knowledge of whether Sun is big endian or not, or if you can have a static private inner class or not.
If my interview is all about syntax minutia, then I know it's a company I *don't* want to work for anyway. And, if I get asked a question like, "How do you synchronize two threads to read and write multi-word data safely, in C?" I'd say, well, the point of is to make sure that no thread can read data that may have only been partly changed. C is pretty low level stuff, so, there's libraries to do this many ways. There's simple semaphore's, their's p()/v() semantics, and... oh, you know, the one like Java where you can declare "areas safe to work in..." you know, it's a general term? Anyway, there's libraries for each..."
So, by the time I'm done, their impressed enough that they don't worry about the fact that I can't pull the syntax for any of those libraries from memory.
This focuses on one's strengths as a system designer, one who understands problems and how to fix them. I'm saying, prove that to someone, and if they still care whether you can name 15 major differences between SQL-92 and 99 or recall instantly all the methods in the JINI interface, and which throw what exceptions, then your dealing with someone who has their priorities a little out of whack.
First off, there's no need to call me an idiot (or imply such). I support, and would invite feverent disagreement. If I'm wrong, I'd want to know why. I certainly understand your passion if 20% of your bandwidth is utilized by spam, but that is no excuse. You do not know me, you do not know my full argument or context of my reasoning. It would be impossible for me to provide such. I would expect brusqness, and don't care much for tact myself, but it is foolishness to read some half off-hand, 100 word posting about a trivial subject and conclude such things about people.
.001% So, even if 20% of all email is spam, 20% of .001% is just not that big a deal.
Now, onto the response.
There are benefits to commercials, but there are also benefits to spam. Those spammers have to buy computers, have a connection of some sort, pay some ISP something. This all supports the internet in general. The real question, is, whether the benefit outweighs the cost. With spam, it may very well. I, however, would argue the same for commercials. Except for one show, I only watch public telivision. It's not because I dislike commercial TV shows, there are many I love, but I don't want my time wasted by commercials.
You say 20% of your bandwidth is wasted by spam? Super. 25% of my time watching commercial TV is wasted by commercials. I haven't been compensated, and my time is about the most precious thing I have.
Secondly, I cannot believe your situation is common. Perhaps it is, and if I'm wrong I want to know. But I know that only about 5% of my email is spam. Besides that, while a lot of email bandwidth (your running an mail server) may be consumed by spam, I know that email constitutes much less than a percent of my total bandwidth useage. I would guess it's closer to
Finally, yes, in the extreme taking something from someone can be evil. But, commercials take my time. Dogs crapping in my yard take my valuable yard space. Personally, I call this annoying, and I file spam somewhere below the dog because it just doesn't matter that much to me.
Your situation is obviously different, but it is neither canonical, nor the only point of view. Personally, I think politicians taking my money to kill people and twist the truth to their own ends is much closer to evil. Corporate execs lying and stealing money for their own gain, now we're getting somewhere. Someone intentionally takes someone's life, that's evil.
If you call a few unwanted 1s and 0s bounced off your router "evil," then perhaps I have very flawed conception of the world, but it seems to me that you must lead a very pampered life indeed.
I'm not saying you should be a spammer. I don't want to be a spammer. If it violates your principles do so, certainly, don't do it.
*But* it violates my principles to eat meat, and I would rather no one did, for I honestly believe that all living things have value, but I'm not going to force that on anyone. I may be wrong. It may be just for me. I don't know, so I'm not going to call you evil for killing what I would consider a sacred and holy creature. (BTW, yes, plant life is sacred as well, but, in the great ironies of the universe, life requires death, and so I simply choose to cause as little death as I can and accept that.)
But, if I'm not going to call someone evil for eating meat (or hunting, or whatever), I find it hard to believe that spam is such a big deal.
As for "invasion of privacy," I really don't understand that at all. I'm not trying to be argumentative, or attacking here, it just really doesn't seem like that big a deal. Maybe I'm wrong--if I am, I'd like to find that out.
But a spammer has stolen no information about you (no more than the ISP, your phone company, or a million other organizations). So, if they're evil for getting your email address, then so is just about every commercial enterprise and everyone that works for them (which I assume includes you). If you mean that actually sending you an email is the invasion of privacy, I really don't understand that. Privacy, here, may be:
(form dictoinory.com)
1. The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
2. The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
Certainly, it does not violate 1, which is the usual meaning. It kind of violates 2, but to a much lesser degree than a TV ad, or even having other people around. I find having to sit next to someone at the movie much more intrusive than I do little bits on my hard drive that get silently deleted by my email filters.
But hey, that's me.
Some people certainly go to far in pursuit of "making a living," and I am all for a principled life. But, in the perfect world, there would be no hunger, no murder, and respect for everyone. Would the world be better if spamming weren't here? Sure. But where does that rank on the scale of things I would change about the world? Maybe not at the bottom, but there are certainly many, many, far more pressing issues to come first.
Whoa! I think I'll have to risk my karma further on this one.
First off, I don't understand why spam can't be regulated. Remember, is does not equal can. It certainly can be regulated. Laws can be passed that prohibit it. You may now say, "Ah, but what about other countries?" Well, if they don't agree to a common, basic set of regulations which we deem necessary and correct, we just bounce all their traffic. Easy enough.
I have four email addresses, I get spam to exactly one of them. I use filters on that one. What actually gets through to me? One spam a month. How much porn have I seen? None. That's the easiest to filter.
Hey, looks like I regulated it myself even.
In fact, I have much more control over spam than I do over any other form of advertising. I'm personally far more offended by political attack ads I get over my TV than by penis enlargement (which I don't get anyway).
Now, I agree whole heartedly that children should be protected from certain material, and spam should be regulated. But, the fact that it is not is not the fault of the spammers, it's the fault of the legislature and the populace.
Finally, and I've touched on this in more than one response already, if you think an email, which can be easily blocked, filtered, or deleted based simply on the title is "evil," then you really should get out more. Murder, war, destroying lives, these things are evil. Some nudie pics and silliness may be annoying, decadent, possibly without virtue, and maybe even morally corrupt but you lead a pampered life indeed if such things are your definition of "evil" is an offer to grow your cock a few inches.
Normal advertisers do not pay for the resources they use. Just like spammers, they pay for some, but not all. In fact, there are very few things where some free riding is not going on.
When a commercial is broadcast into my television, I have recieved no compensation for watching or being subjected to those ideas. They have paid for neither my television, my cable connection (if I had one), or, most importantly, my time. Surely you don't propose that inbox space, or the tiny fraction of bandwidth used by spam on your system is more valuable than your time? I think much more highly of my time than that.
Besides TV commercials, billboards obstruct my line of and deface my city and scenery (which is very certainly a resource). I am not compensated. Radio ads also take my time. Magazine ads also waste my time, for something I've already paid for. Flyers and posters not only deface my car and house, but cause litter and environmental damage. Same with mailed ads.
Now, on to spam. All those systems you speak have the ability to effectively block all spam activity, and to do so is typically not all that difficult. Sure, some will always get through, but you are surely not suggesting that an email or two a month (after proper steps have been taken) is anything to worry about?
Other advertisements have free rider problems too, which I agree is bad, but is also impossible to avoid. If you accept them, then I really don't see how you can argue against spam on that basis. The numbers just don't add up.
The only real difference I see is that if you don't like spam, you can get rid of it. Since this can be done at no cost, and fairly easily, I'll again state that it is, by far, the least "evil" of all advertisements forms.
And finally, if you think spam is "evil," you really should get out more. Talk to a WWII veteran, a murder victim, someone's who's house has burned down, or lost their dog. In fact, I'd rather get a spam here and there than stub my toe. I'm all for differing opinions and points of view, but to think spam is evil makes me think you must lead a *very* pampered existence.
True, but the, there are other factors which one must consider. To equate drug lords with spamming is great rhetoric, but not a very cogent argument. In any case, I assume that you're being tongue in cheek anyway, but it does bring up a good point.
Being basically a pure libretarian (people should be able to do anything they want so long as it interferes with no one else's lives), I do have *some* problem with Betty's chosen line of work. It does infringe on other's people's lives somewhat to have spam show up in their mailbox. Still, I can, and do, block spam very effectively. I maybe get one or two emails a month that slip through. There are very few things that interfere with my life any less than spam does.
There *are* some instances were spam is unacceptable, however. The drug lord example illustrates two. First, where what is being spammed is illegal, or there exist laws which make the spamming itself illegal. Two, targetting spam towards individuals who are not competent (mainly children) to distinguish BS from fact or exposing children to adult material (which I would consider a good reason to ban adult spam, especially where adult content is contained directly in the spam).
Spam can cross the line, but really, it usually doesn't. Turn off your cookies, only give out your Yahoo! address, and don't worry about it to much.