A smart, hard working individual can goto 1. bad school or 2. good school and be successful out of both and be a great asset to society and the workforce.
But a dumb, lazy individual can goto 1. bad school and get a diploma and make it out and get a job and become a liability to the workforce. or 2. goto a good school and the good school weeds the person out such that he realizes that he needs to change majors or improve themself to the level that they can be successful.
So the problem that irks me is that, from a bad school you can have both good and bad people. And it's the bad ones that hurt this industry. Imagine if you had incompetent doctors coming out of crap schools but still able to work at a hospital and kill people.
Sorry for my usage of the term "bad" school. i really mean schools that do not do their best effort to make sure the people who graduate are the most qualified individuals possible.
Superman though his image is sweeping in to save the day, does not mean he is some foreign imperialistic invader who thinks he's better than everyone else. (I for one do not like the path that america is going down but superman is not an icon of propaganda to be associated with what america is doing now. That accusation completely defaces who superman is, hear me out:)
Let's look at 2 things: 1. Lex Luthor - he is Superman's arch nemesis and Lex stands for capitalism, cronyism, greed, power, money, corruption and the power of technology over hope and goodwill. These things more represent the ideas of an imperialistic icon invading other nations and forcing its ideology upon others. Superman is not Lex Luthor.
2. Clark Kent - he is the humble, common working person. He grew up on a farm, not rich and elite like Lex Luthor. He is not the egotistical, ideology pushing icon of american imperialism. He embodies the struggle within all of us geeks to remove people's reliance on perception, and look within to see the true self.
It is extremely important to weed out students who
1. come into IT for money 2. come into IT because their friends are doing it 3. come into IT for money
I wish more schools were like my school, i won't mention it so that it doesn't seem too braggish. but alot of other schools, i would say state and community college level schools give diplomas to students who are not qualified to be in the IT field. PERIOD, I have witnessed this everyday of my life in the real working world.
You would not admit some shoddy money hungry wannabe into the civil engineering or medical world. Stop doing it for the IT world.
More IT jobs are opening up, but we can not take the risk again of flooding unqualified individuals into the IT world again. I recommend hiring only the students who have made it out of hardcore CS degree programs from very highly ranked schools. If companies did that they would not have to worry about having all these low performing IT workers who busted the industry in 2000.
Again I must emphasize, weed out the students who are not smart and do not work hard and most of all, do not love the career. You will be doing everyone, companies, employees and their families, an abundance of justice. It will work out better for everyone in the future. Please - weed out the students - only give us the best.
On an aside - the perception of an IT person has been extremely diminished because of the unqualified individuals who got jobs during the 90s and caused the dot com bust. We have these people to thank who just chased money around for causing our image to plummet into a lowly worker.
When someone asks you what your job is, and you say, computer programmer. does that even sound good anymore? it almost sounds like their is a stigma to it. Like oh no-- are you going to get laid off anytime soon? or i hear the industry isn't doing that well are you looking at a career change, what are you going to do?
It's absolutely horrid what the dot com bust and the heaps and piles of unqualified individuals have done to this industry. If this was medicine we would have sued the hell out of the people who screwed it all up.
I've played on the XBOX360 and I can say that the graphics are not as phenomenal as one would expect from a next-generation system.
The graphics are about the same as a modern day computer game with the latest graphics card and cpu.
When I was playing the XBOX360, I realized there's nothing really that cool about this next-gen system. A point the CNN article talks about. It really isn't that innovative. It's just the same games, made prettier.
There's only so much you can do to the graphics, until the gamer realizes hey this is the same thing! Except I paid a whole lot more money!
Playing the XBOX360 made me realize, the innovation of something like Nintendo's Revolution controller may be a greater leap in gaming than Microsoft and Sony. You could end up using the Revolution's controller as a lightsaber, a gun, a tennis racket, a baseball bat, a steering wheel (use your imagination), you can really revolutionize the interaction between the user and the game simply by changing the controller like Nintendo has done. And that thought makes me drool at how more fun games will be.
Otherwise there's no difference in me just going and buying Call of Duty 2 and playing it on my home PC.
He complains about the top/down or bottom/up approach, but really, YOU CAN do it. Visual Studio just highlights the syntax, but who cares, just keep coding top down.
And if you want to code bottom/up then you're fine that way too!
Intellisense is the best thing available, because you can quickly browse the API for objects and functions instantly. AND you will not mispell them because it autocompletes it when you press the Tab key.
I remember programming old C/C++ in vi on unix. Dude you have to friggin spell/spellcheck/compile/respell objects/functions/variables everywhere that are mispelled. In Visual Studio, that risk has been minimized to almost zero. I can start writing a program and compile it and 99/100 times, I have no spelling mistakes!!!! THANK GOD FOR INTELLISENSE!
Switch context and start learning as much as you can about the business. Read Harvard Business Review, I think it is the most valuable magazine on the market. In today's world you have to be aware that being the best programmer in your company can only get you so far. Being the best (programmer that knows the most about the business) will elevate you further than just a pure technical background. We can no longer rest comfortable on our thrones of technical knowledge, it is now in best interests to be the best (computer science + multifield cross discipline learner) because learning how to apply your knowledge to real business (in order to make the business perform better) will be the main reason the company chooses you instead of some dude in india. (sorry india):)
Or it could be top secret government technology that some russians have discovered and posted a funny website to say: hey we know about your secrets now.
I understand your point about ambition, we do have ambition, the people who work in our field who studied CS and graduated from top univerisities didn't come into this field dreaming of becoming a politics manager, we love computer science and we have the ambition in technology and science. Most managers I would say are not ambitious about that field of study, but are ambitious to their own selfish means (make more money, appear more powerful)
Here really it's not one or the other that would make the best manager, it is both, we would elect a manager who is an expert in CS and is also well spoken and can get things done for us outside of our team. But we would never elect someone who just doesn't want to do the work and wants to propel themselves up and up just because they seek power and more money.
We do possess these skills, the problem is not -us-, the problem is the image you have inside your head that the techies are just coders. Linus Torvalds is an expert and he manages linux versions in a large community that depends on many many people to get the work done. He is not some goober who doesn't know how to code and just is at the top to be at the top.
This is dangerous, one reason there are annoying politcal things to do is because the organization itself creates alot of red tape in order to get some simple things done.
I can tell you every team i've had in school was the most successful team in the class. The reason is because each and everyone of us were experts, the elected manager was an expert plus a great communicator, and he also was down in the ditches coding with us late at night. On a note of leadership, natural leadership arises within the team depending on the situation, why physics is needed, someone on the team with more expertise in physics speaks up about it and we get excited. If graphic design is needed, the same thing happens. We all have strengths to contribute at times of leadership. That is what the team needs.
I understand your point about ambition, we do have ambition, the people who work in our field who studied CS and graduated from top univerisities didn't come into this field dreaming of becoming a politics manager, we love computer science and we have the ambition in technology and science. Most managers I would say are not ambitious about that field of study, but are ambitious to their own selfish means (make more money, appear more powerful)
Here really it's not one or the other that would make the best manager, it is both, we would elect a manager who is an expert in CS and is also well spoken and can get things done for us outside of our team. But we would never elect someone who just doesn't want to do the work and wants to propel themselves up and up just because they seek power and more money.
We do possess these skills, the problem is not -us-, the problem is the image you have inside your head that the techies are just coders. Linus Torvalds is an expert and he manages linux versions in a large community that depends on many many people to get the work done. He is not some goober who doesn't know how to code and just is at the top to be at the top.
This is dangerous, one reason there are annoying politcal things to do is because the organization itself creates alot of red tape in order to get some simple things done.
I can tell you every team i've had in school was the most successful team in the class. The reason is because each and everyone of us were experts, the elected manager was an expert plus a great communicator, and he also was down in the ditches coding with us late at night. On a note of leadership, natural leadership arises within the team depending on the situation, why physics is needed, someone on the team with more expertise in physics speaks up about it and we get excited. If graphic design is needed, the same thing happens. We all have strengths to contribute at times of leadership. That is what the team needs.
too commonly is the workplace filled with smart people at the bottom doing the work while people who aren't smart enough to do the work get promoted up to become managers just because they are more well-spoken.
in my opinion the team should elect its own manager.
unfortunately we are subject to everyone trying to climb over each other and if you don't and you decide to stay where you are because you enjoy what you do and are good at it, they start pressing people to "spend time in the jungle" which is get out of the division and experience other positions and responsibilities at other divisions.
very rarely can we ever -just- do our work, walking into the corporate world for me exposed me to a world of office politics and a slow bureaucratic mind numbing machine.
currently the people who get on top are the ones who are well spoken, have the best presentable image, but they are not the experts. so if they are not the experts why are they paid insanely magnified times the salary of a worker is actually the expert?
Don't buy a XBOX360 you crazies! We need to purchase the PS3 in order to make sure Microsoft is utterly slaughtered in this next gen video game system competition.
It is a good thing there are less and less people coming into the programming world. There are really too many people who should not be in it in the first place. If they are not smart enough to learn any programming language and use it then they do not need to be in our field.
Sony is playing to win. They built the PS2 to destroy the Sega Dreamcast. And it worked. They did not however build the PS2 to defeat the XBOX. But the PS3 will be there to defeat the XBOX360. And the price reduced PS2 will be awesome competition. A 99$ PS2 will outsell a 149$ XBOX. And alot of parents can not afford to buy a new 300$ console plus extra controllers and accessories when they can spend that same 300$ to buy a PS2 and a ton of games. Sony is playing their cards well.
Something has swooped people over and made them so blind to these things and alot of other things that have happened and are happening.
An interesting thing is that if there is a conspiracy going on, then it is in the best interests of the people responsible for the conspiracy to make sure their plot seems like a conspiracy such that anyone who actually tries to say there is a conspiracy will be looked at like a loon.
The word conspiracy has connotations of weird people who believe in UFO's and cover ups and other crackpots. No one will take them seriously.
That is the advantage of conspirators. Also the more complex and deep the accused conspiracy situation is the more insane the person trying to prove it sounds. Because who would believe anyone would goto such crazy lengths to do certain things in this world?
In my opinion, evil has all to benefit from making its conspiracy as complex as possible. Only the smartest people and the people with the most time on their hands will be able to find out what is going on. And that will make them seem like crackpot geeks with no life.
Try and google and see how many people have been tried and found guilty of conspiracy and fraud in the past few years. I think you will be shocked that there ARE MANY.
If linux had a mac os x like desktop it would offer mainstream users a better experience. Not all users are system admin types. But if you want to you still have that freedom to do your thing. Or you can play around in the awesome desktop environment that mac os x is, which i do 90% of the time.
Your boss is a psychopath or sociopath. Google the characteristics of these types of people and print it out and show it to him and circle the ones that describe him.
1. linux can kill unix, because it's essentially a free unix!
2. unix NEVER came close to killing windows.
3. therefore unix/linux can't kill windows.
4. UNLESS linux becomes a killer MAC OSX, imagine that, a free MAC OSX on powerpc and x86 platforms. What linux is missing is the mainstream ease and appeal. MAC OSX can bring it agains Windows. Get Linux to copy MAC OSX and you will kill Windows.
Yes I agree. I can say I have seen that happening at the corporate I work at. If I ever started my own company I'd never join the stock market. Something different happens when your bosses start working for the shareholders and the board rather than caring about people and real work. Somehow, someway, money takes over the medicore people's attention.
Believe me we use an old Honeywell system at work called MeasureX which uses graphical programming. EVERYTHING IS BLOCKS AND LINES CONNECTING EACH OTHER. It is the most inefficent way to read code possible. The human brain can read text code insanely faster than trying to decipher a huge picture with tons of blocks and lines strewn everywhere with complex connections and pipes from page to page. It is the most horrible thing I have ever seen. And if you have one missing connection or pipe, goodness good luck trying to debug it.
who cares, if they decide to do something bad then they'll get smashed to smithereens, but probability wise i bet they just have them to threaten and scare big people like the u.s. who likes to lurch over them and poke them in the buttocks.
seriously folks, don't do anything to provoke them and they flap around like fish until they lose their will to annoy people.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. It is the person, not the degree.
However I will throw in one caveat:
A smart, hard working individual can goto
1. bad school or
2. good school
and be successful out of both and be a great asset to society and the workforce.
But a dumb, lazy individual can goto
1. bad school and get a diploma and make it out and get a job and become a liability to the workforce. or
2. goto a good school and the good school weeds the person out such that he realizes that he needs to change majors or improve themself to the level that they can be successful.
So the problem that irks me is that, from a bad school you can have both good and bad people. And it's the bad ones that hurt this industry. Imagine if you had incompetent doctors coming out of crap schools but still able to work at a hospital and kill people.
Sorry for my usage of the term "bad" school. i really mean schools that do not do their best effort to make sure the people who graduate are the most qualified individuals possible.
Superman though his image is sweeping in to save the day, does not mean he is some foreign imperialistic invader who thinks he's better than everyone else. (I for one do not like the path that america is going down but superman is not an icon of propaganda to be associated with what america is doing now. That accusation completely defaces who superman is, hear me out:)
Let's look at 2 things:
1. Lex Luthor - he is Superman's arch nemesis and Lex stands for capitalism, cronyism, greed, power, money, corruption and the power of technology over hope and goodwill. These things more represent the ideas of an imperialistic icon invading other nations and forcing its ideology upon others. Superman is not Lex Luthor.
2. Clark Kent - he is the humble, common working person. He grew up on a farm, not rich and elite like Lex Luthor. He is not the egotistical, ideology pushing icon of american imperialism. He embodies the struggle within all of us geeks to remove people's reliance on perception, and look within to see the true self.
It is extremely important to weed out students who
1. come into IT for money
2. come into IT because their friends are doing it
3. come into IT for money
I wish more schools were like my school, i won't mention it so that it doesn't seem too braggish. but alot of other schools, i would say state and community college level schools give diplomas to students who are not qualified to be in the IT field. PERIOD, I have witnessed this everyday of my life in the real working world.
You would not admit some shoddy money hungry wannabe into the civil engineering or medical world. Stop doing it for the IT world.
More IT jobs are opening up, but we can not take the risk again of flooding unqualified individuals into the IT world again. I recommend hiring only the students who have made it out of hardcore CS degree programs from very highly ranked schools. If companies did that they would not have to worry about having all these low performing IT workers who busted the industry in 2000.
Again I must emphasize, weed out the students who are not smart and do not work hard and most of all, do not love the career. You will be doing everyone, companies, employees and their families, an abundance of justice. It will work out better for everyone in the future. Please - weed out the students - only give us the best.
On an aside - the perception of an IT person has been extremely diminished because of the unqualified individuals who got jobs during the 90s and caused the dot com bust. We have these people to thank who just chased money around for causing our image to plummet into a lowly worker.
When someone asks you what your job is, and you say, computer programmer. does that even sound good anymore? it almost sounds like their is a stigma to it. Like oh no-- are you going to get laid off anytime soon? or i hear the industry isn't doing that well are you looking at a career change, what are you going to do?
It's absolutely horrid what the dot com bust and the heaps and piles of unqualified individuals have done to this industry. If this was medicine we would have sued the hell out of the people who screwed it all up.
1) i didn't say it costs more than a pc
2) so what about gfx? after awhile they get boring that was the whole point of the cnn article (no innovation)
I've played on the XBOX360 and I can say that the graphics are not as phenomenal as one would expect from a next-generation system.
The graphics are about the same as a modern day computer game with the latest graphics card and cpu.
When I was playing the XBOX360, I realized there's nothing really that cool about this next-gen system. A point the CNN article talks about. It really isn't that innovative. It's just the same games, made prettier.
There's only so much you can do to the graphics, until the gamer realizes hey this is the same thing! Except I paid a whole lot more money!
Playing the XBOX360 made me realize, the innovation of something like Nintendo's Revolution controller may be a greater leap in gaming than Microsoft and Sony. You could end up using the Revolution's controller as a lightsaber, a gun, a tennis racket, a baseball bat, a steering wheel (use your imagination), you can really revolutionize the interaction between the user and the game simply by changing the controller like Nintendo has done. And that thought makes me drool at how more fun games will be.
Otherwise there's no difference in me just going and buying Call of Duty 2 and playing it on my home PC.
Sorry, but that article is totally brain rot.
He complains about the top/down or bottom/up approach, but really, YOU CAN do it. Visual Studio just highlights the syntax, but who cares, just keep coding top down.
And if you want to code bottom/up then you're fine that way too!
Intellisense is the best thing available, because you can quickly browse the API for objects and functions instantly. AND you will not mispell them because it autocompletes it when you press the Tab key.
I remember programming old C/C++ in vi on unix. Dude you have to friggin spell/spellcheck/compile/respell objects/functions/variables everywhere that are mispelled. In Visual Studio, that risk has been minimized to almost zero. I can start writing a program and compile it and 99/100 times, I have no spelling mistakes!!!! THANK GOD FOR INTELLISENSE!
Switch context and start learning as much as you can about the business. Read Harvard Business Review, I think it is the most valuable magazine on the market. In today's world you have to be aware that being the best programmer in your company can only get you so far. Being the best (programmer that knows the most about the business) will elevate you further than just a pure technical background. We can no longer rest comfortable on our thrones of technical knowledge, it is now in best interests to be the best (computer science + multifield cross discipline learner) because learning how to apply your knowledge to real business (in order to make the business perform better) will be the main reason the company chooses you instead of some dude in india. (sorry india) :)
Or it could be top secret government technology that some russians have discovered and posted a funny website to say: hey we know about your secrets now.
I understand your point about ambition, we do have ambition, the people who work in our field who studied CS and graduated from top univerisities didn't come into this field dreaming of becoming a politics manager, we love computer science and we have the ambition in technology and science. Most managers I would say are not ambitious about that field of study, but are ambitious to their own selfish means (make more money, appear more powerful)
Here really it's not one or the other that would make the best manager, it is both, we would elect a manager who is an expert in CS and is also well spoken and can get things done for us outside of our team. But we would never elect someone who just doesn't want to do the work and wants to propel themselves up and up just because they seek power and more money.
We do possess these skills, the problem is not -us-, the problem is the image you have inside your head that the techies are just coders. Linus Torvalds is an expert and he manages linux versions in a large community that depends on many many people to get the work done. He is not some goober who doesn't know how to code and just is at the top to be at the top.
This is dangerous, one reason there are annoying politcal things to do is because the organization itself creates alot of red tape in order to get some simple things done.
I can tell you every team i've had in school was the most successful team in the class. The reason is because each and everyone of us were experts, the elected manager was an expert plus a great communicator, and he also was down in the ditches coding with us late at night. On a note of leadership, natural leadership arises within the team depending on the situation, why physics is needed, someone on the team with more expertise in physics speaks up about it and we get excited. If graphic design is needed, the same thing happens. We all have strengths to contribute at times of leadership. That is what the team needs.
I understand your point about ambition, we do have ambition, the people who work in our field who studied CS and graduated from top univerisities didn't come into this field dreaming of becoming a politics manager, we love computer science and we have the ambition in technology and science. Most managers I would say are not ambitious about that field of study, but are ambitious to their own selfish means (make more money, appear more powerful)
Here really it's not one or the other that would make the best manager, it is both, we would elect a manager who is an expert in CS and is also well spoken and can get things done for us outside of our team. But we would never elect someone who just doesn't want to do the work and wants to propel themselves up and up just because they seek power and more money.
We do possess these skills, the problem is not -us-, the problem is the image you have inside your head that the techies are just coders. Linus Torvalds is an expert and he manages linux versions in a large community that depends on many many people to get the work done. He is not some goober who doesn't know how to code and just is at the top to be at the top.
This is dangerous, one reason there are annoying politcal things to do is because the organization itself creates alot of red tape in order to get some simple things done.
I can tell you every team i've had in school was the most successful team in the class. The reason is because each and everyone of us were experts, the elected manager was an expert plus a great communicator, and he also was down in the ditches coding with us late at night. On a note of leadership, natural leadership arises within the team depending on the situation, why physics is needed, someone on the team with more expertise in physics speaks up about it and we get excited. If graphic design is needed, the same thing happens. We all have strengths to contribute at times of leadership. That is what the team needs.
i would love to work this way.
too commonly is the workplace filled with smart people at the bottom doing the work while people who aren't smart enough to do the work get promoted up to become managers just because they are more well-spoken.
in my opinion the team should elect its own manager.
unfortunately we are subject to everyone trying to climb over each other and if you don't and you decide to stay where you are because you enjoy what you do and are good at it, they start pressing people to "spend time in the jungle" which is get out of the division and experience other positions and responsibilities at other divisions.
very rarely can we ever -just- do our work, walking into the corporate world for me exposed me to a world of office politics and a slow bureaucratic mind numbing machine.
currently the people who get on top are the ones who are well spoken, have the best presentable image, but they are not the experts. so if they are not the experts why are they paid insanely magnified times the salary of a worker is actually the expert?
what does this guy above me do all day anyway?
Don't buy a XBOX360 you crazies! We need to purchase the PS3 in order to make sure Microsoft is utterly slaughtered in this next gen video game system competition.
It is a good thing there are less and less people coming into the programming world. There are really too many people who should not be in it in the first place. If they are not smart enough to learn any programming language and use it then they do not need to be in our field.
Sony is playing to win. They built the PS2 to destroy the Sega Dreamcast. And it worked.
They did not however build the PS2 to defeat the XBOX. But the PS3 will be there to defeat the XBOX360. And the price reduced PS2 will be awesome competition. A 99$ PS2 will outsell a 149$ XBOX. And alot of parents can not afford to buy a new 300$ console plus extra controllers and accessories when they can spend that same 300$ to buy a PS2 and a ton of games. Sony is playing their cards well.
I wish I had these kinds of deadline moves at work!
thanks for writing one of the most convoluted programming books in history
simplicity and elegance are definately not in this book
this is microsoft, it doesn't have to be safe or work correctly.
the coffee maker would drip incessantly causing the user to bend down and wipe it up, getting them into accidents.
the coffee would taste bad and probably have some oil and antifreeze leaked into it.
Something has swooped people over and made them so blind to these things and alot of other things that have happened and are happening.
An interesting thing is that if there is a conspiracy going on, then it is in the best interests of the people responsible for the conspiracy to make sure their plot seems like a conspiracy such that anyone who actually tries to say there is a conspiracy will be looked at like a loon.
The word conspiracy has connotations of weird people who believe in UFO's and cover ups and other crackpots. No one will take them seriously.
That is the advantage of conspirators.
Also the more complex and deep the accused conspiracy situation is the more insane the person trying to prove it sounds. Because who would believe anyone would goto such crazy lengths to do certain things in this world?
In my opinion, evil has all to benefit from making its conspiracy as complex as possible. Only the smartest people and the people with the most time on their hands will be able to find out what is going on. And that will make them seem like crackpot geeks with no life.
Try and google and see how many people have been tried and found guilty of conspiracy and fraud in the past few years. I think you will be shocked that there ARE MANY.
If linux had a mac os x like desktop it would offer mainstream users a better experience. Not all users are system admin types. But if you want to you still have that freedom to do your thing. Or you can play around in the awesome desktop environment that mac os x is, which i do 90% of the time.
Just a note...
Your boss is a psychopath or sociopath.
Google the characteristics of these types of people and print it out and show it to him and circle the ones that describe him.
linux (right now) won't kill windows because
1. linux can kill unix, because it's essentially a free unix!
2. unix NEVER came close to killing windows.
3. therefore unix/linux can't kill windows.
4. UNLESS linux becomes a killer MAC OSX, imagine that, a free MAC OSX on powerpc and x86 platforms.
What linux is missing is the mainstream ease and appeal. MAC OSX can bring it agains Windows. Get Linux to copy MAC OSX and you will kill Windows.
Yes I agree. I can say I have seen that happening at the corporate I work at. If I ever started my own company I'd never join the stock market. Something different happens when your bosses start working for the shareholders and the board rather than caring about people and real work. Somehow, someway, money takes over the medicore people's attention.
Believe me we use an old Honeywell system at work called MeasureX which uses graphical programming. EVERYTHING IS BLOCKS AND LINES CONNECTING EACH OTHER. It is the most inefficent way to read code possible. The human brain can read text code insanely faster than trying to decipher a huge picture with tons of blocks and lines strewn everywhere with complex connections and pipes from page to page. It is the most horrible thing I have ever seen. And if you have one missing connection or pipe, goodness good luck trying to debug it.
yes that's what happened to iraq even though their arsenal was pathetic.
who cares, if they decide to do something bad then they'll get smashed to smithereens, but probability wise i bet they just have them to threaten and scare big people like the u.s. who likes to lurch over them and poke them in the buttocks.
seriously folks, don't do anything to provoke them and they flap around like fish until they lose their will to annoy people.