Carly Fiorina gave the commencement speech for my college graduation. Her speech centered around the idea that my/our generation was the reality TV generation, and that our biggest challenge would be to successfully differentiate between reality and reality TV.
Fuck you Carly Fiorina. You suck. I hope you lose. Although you seem to be pretty well suited to be a politician.
I don't think it has anything to do with facebook, twitter, and instagram. I am 35 and I don't use any of those things. Have you stayed current with new technology? Hardly any area of programming has been static for the last 40 years.
You don't always get a response like this from someone, even with Islam. There have been a lot of draw Muhammad events, and relatively few incidents end like this. I can't even recall a single event like this (where Christians are willing to murder over blasphemy) happening for Christianity in my lifetime. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it does seem like Islam has the top score for avenging blasphemy through murder (at least recently).
Its not that simple. The legal and property protections offered by a trade secret, a legally recognized type of intellectual property, is lost. The owner deprived of its benefits.
Obviously the owner is deprived of the benefits of a trade secret once it is no longer secret. All I am saying is that this benefit was not stolen.
That is a title not a trade secret. Again a trade secret is a legally defined type of intellectual property that offers the owner specific legal rights and privileges. For example something in the process that Ford uses to manufacture those trucks. A Ford employee could not take that process to Toyota.
I am not arguing that the title of "America's best selling car" and a trade secret are legally equivalent. I am saying that they are logically analogous. A person may derive great pleasure form owning "America's best selling car", and if it ceases to be so, that person is deprived of that benefit. Whether that person is legally entitled to those benefits or not is another matter.
The owner was not deprived of the trade secrets. The owner still has all the information. It's just not secret anymore.
Let's say I buy a Ford F series truck. It's "America's best selling car". Now lets say a Toyota model gains the title. Was an "America's best selling car" stolen from me? I used to have one, and now I don't. I still have the same car I always had. It's just not the most popular anymore
When you jump the turnstile in a subway, you are taking up room in a potentially crowded train and lowering the quality of service for paying customers. You are consuming resources without paying for them. That is still the same concept as theft of a physical object. Copying is different than stealing in that no additional resources are consumed.
I find the glance to be rather neutral (as far as sexually suggestive glances go). Maybe your perception of her glance as being sexually suggestive is due to your own issues. I don't doubt that the picture will make some people feel uncomfortable. I am not even saying it is appropriate for high school. All I am saying is that I disagree with your assessment of the facial expression in this picture as sexually suggestive. I think you are incorrectly inferring this from the picture because you know what magazine it's from and whats in the rest of the picture. If this picture wasn't famous, I don't think anyone would care. It would just be one of a billion pretty faces we see every day all around us in media.
Poker is only a game of psychology to things with the ability to exploit and be exploited by psychology. To a computer, poker can just be all math. a computer can also try to analyze behavior to look for patterns (e.g. like tells), in essence to play more like a human, but this also opens up the door to being tricked like a human. The computer may not be as good at playing like a human, but the human absolutely sucks at playing like a computer, and a computer always has to option to keep the games all math.
American workers by mandating that positions can only be filled by H-1B workers when no qualified American — at any wage — can be found to fill the position.
I don't think that a job exists that some American would not be willing to take for $1 billion dollars.
The following jobs where it would be easy to find *some* American willing to do for $1 billion:
1. Be raped to death (with he proceeds going to their family).
2. Kill their whole family (with the proceeds going to themselves).
3. Being the 2nd or 3rd person in a human centipede.
4. Being eaten to death by Hannibal Lecter.
5. Being fed to themselves to death by Hannibal Lecter.
I'm obviously not saying tuition free public schools don't have other problems (especially in America), but that one particular aspect of tuition based schools has a problem that the tuition free schools don't.
The free market isn't the problem. The problem is that legislators should not be allowed to sell their power on the free market. If a congressman wants to auction off influence on ebay, the problem isn't ebay.
Uber backs the legislation, saying the bill would promote innovation and keep Uber drivers and passengers safe, said Meghan Joyce, Uber East Coast general manager, in a statement. Massachusetts residents have shown they support ride-hailing and Lyft will work with the state to pass legislation that maintains this transportation option, according to the company.
The main innovation of Uber and Lyft is that it bypassed taxi legislation. It introduced a supply/demand based pricing system (which presumably bypasses legislation on pricing). It does not limit the amount of drivers that can be on the road (bypassing the legislation requiring taxis to have medallions designed to limit the supply of drivers). I don't think the government would have considered these to be innovations until it worked better than the existing corrupt taxi system.
I am not saying that that paying students never fail out of college. I am saying that the decision to fail a student (at the macro level not the micro level) is a financial decision. Not failing a student generates continued revenue, but if the student is incompetent and graduates there is a cost in terms of devaluing of the product the college has for sale (a diploma). There is also a financial benefit to failing a student if the student is forced to enroll in more terms and pay more tuition (assuming they don't just drop out or transfer).
They don't want a bunch of incompetent kids waiving their (now apparently worthless) diplomas around, but they also can't have professors failing entire classes. Both are bad for business. No one wants a worthless degree and no one wants to spend money going to a school where they have a small chance of graduating (i.e. getting a return on their investment).
I don't think academia is always *just* a facade. I am sure many academic institutions actually do a great job teaching students, and have the integrity to fail students even if it means they get less tuition money.
I don't think this is true as a whole. I went to a college where the CS department was very good about failing people and expelling cheaters, etc. However other departments in the same college and even CS departments in other colleges within the same university had rampant cheating.
The facade I am referring to is the fact that the illusion of academic integrity is more important to actual academic integrity as a whole because of the financial disincentive to fail your paying customers.
To me this is similar to the facade of ethics in congress. Congress is in charge of ethics investigations of it's members, but both parties basically have a truce not to investigate each other without consent of the other party. So basically democrats won't investigate ethics violations of republicans unless the republicans want to do it, and vice versa. Only the most egregious offenders that are abandoned by their own party actually get investigated.
You DID say that software documentation was less important than writing code.
Are you not able to understand the difference between "less important" and "not important"?
Sometimes, it's better to write the documentation first, then the implementation. But you don't care - "It's not my job. My time is too valuable."
Sometimes it's better for a surgeon to clean the bathrooms. I don't make a habbit of making "never/always" style claims.
Good documentation, done either before or concurrently, shortens the time needed to code it right, and often leads to getting it right the first time.
I don't doubt that there are people that can't write good code without writing documentation first. But it only shortens the time needed to produce a finished product for people with that particular deficiency.
Furthermore, this is still irrelevant given that my argument is that pretty anybody can do the documentation (it is a *less* valuable skill).
It should also make it clear what the edge cases are and how they are handled, because a cryptic error code isn't enough.
Software done right doesn't have cryptic error codes. It has consistent intuitive behavior. And like I already said, the documentation gets done, just not by me.
Just from a probability perspective, it seems more likely to get one bad professor than 30 bad students. Obviously there are always going to be some bad apples, but most courses don;t devolve to this.
I was in 2 classes with rampant cheating. I didn't participate. One class was just an ethnomusicology elective. The other was a digital logic circuit lab, that I was pretty good at to begin with. I'd like to think I wouldn't cheat even if I had a strong incentive, but I was never in that position.
In my other classes, cheating was an instant expulsion (maybe with 1 second chance if you cried a lot). You didn't even want to be suspected of cheating, because the professors would just report you and let the (whoever) decide if it was true.
Overall there was a general atmosphere that the path of least resistance was learning the material (which would no doubt be vitally important in the subsequent classes anyway). That's the way it should be.
There was a big group of Koreans that managed to keep cheating for a few quarters without getting caught, but that fizzled out when we got passed the remedial stuff and all the tests just became open book, and no longer trivially easy to cheat on even if you wanted to.
By the end, the closest thing to cheating was people getting luck+sympathy, like turning in a shit thesis with 1 judge seeing it for what it was, 1 judge feeling sorry for the person, and the other judge not showing up and defaulting to a pass. 2-1 == pass.
It's the American way, the administration bails you out if you pay their salary.
We don't bail out people, if there is not something in it for the people doing the bailing-of-out.
We bail out large investment banks that donate to political campaigns and swap managers with the treasury department, but we don't bail out people who can't pay their mortgage.
I have a hard time believing that every single student was cheating. There must have been at least one kid who had strict immigrant parents in the class.
If the kids pass, they have succeeded in degrading the value of the diploma that they (or more likely their parents) are paying for.
The kids will be lucky if they fail the class, and that it is public. At least a prospective employer might entertain the possibility that those kids actually ended up learning the material before graduating.
The K-12 system is loosely test-based. Meaning that the job of the school is (partly) to help kids get a good score on a set of standardized tests (culminating in the SAT, SAT2, etc). There is a disincentive to merely pretend to prepare the kids for these tests. The school is paid by the state, not the students directly.
The bachelor program is based on internal grades. The university can give out whatever grades they want to. The students pay the university tuition. There is an incentive for the school to give good grades to the students (i.e. their paying customers). The only disincentive to this practice, is that it destroys the facade that the kids are actually learning, and therefore value of the diploma they are purchasing. It is in the interest of both the students and the school to keep up this facade. The students can pretend to know things, and the university can profit.
Unfortunately for these students, they don't realize that if they are not going to at least pretend (much less realize) that they are learning, then they may was well just go out partying with their tuition money rather than wasting it on a worthless (made so by them) degree.
Actually, sometimes it's better to take the time to do the docs yourself, rather than try to explain what's going on to someone who didn't write it. Not only doesn't it take much more time, but the quality is better, and then someone who has to maintain the docs at least has a solid base to go forward on.
We have an excellent team of people writing documents. They don't seem to have any problems.
Sure, you can do things like comments/* THERE BE DRAGONS HERE */ and/* IT LOOKS WRONG BUT IT ISN'T */, but those are the very areas I wouldn't trust someone else to prepare the docs on from scratch. It's also good to put example usage in the docs, something that a person who didn't write it may very well get wrong.
Also, nobody tests 10 million lines of fresh code in one shot - unless you're really into spaghetti code.
We have a 10 million line codebase that is constantly being updated.
I've been doing it long enough that I don't get very much in the way of syntax errors - possibly because my reading skills are obviously better than yours.
1. detecting syntax errors before the compiler does, is basically a useless skill. Congratulations. 2. Your reading skills are not better than mine. As I said, I don't proofread what I write. (i.e. I'm not using my reading skills in slashdot). What's the point of having reading skills without the ability to comprehend? But having useless skills is sort of your thing I guess.
Attention to detail, expressive code, and the ability to explain it for future use (even yourself 6 months down the road) via docs is what makes a good programmer and on that you fail
Now explain how not proofreading slashdot comments before submitting them has any bearing on the code I write. Do you really believe it's impossible to give different amounts of effort to those 2 things?
and the biggest fail is that you don't seem to understand that programming and development is more than just banging it out and throwing it over the wall.
You seem to be under the false impression that it is necessary for each person to perform all the duties of software development from start to finish rather than employing division of labor.
I never said good documentation isn't necessary. It is necessary. I said it is able to be done by nearly anyone (like you). So it is more efficient to have it done by people with no other useful skills (like you).
I am very good at explaining how software works to people, as evidenced by the excellent documentation that exists for my code (mostly written by other people).
I don't proofread my own comments, but I comprehend the things I do read. You should give it a try sometime.
Another fool who doesn't consider documentation as being productive.
Given my salary and that pretty much anyone can do it, it's a waste of my time, and my company's budget.
Also, being able to proofread has helped me spot and fix lots of bugs in other people's code, whether c, c++, php, whatever.
How long does it take you to proofread 10 million lines of code? I don't know if you've heard the news, but computers can do a lot of the tedious work for you. There are compilers, static analysis tools, memory analysis tools, debuggers, etc. They catch way more errors than a human ever could by proofreading.
Doing a compile just to find a typo is lame.
It finds *all* the typos, and having an ide which is constantly compiling the code as you edit it, finds the typos in real time and offers suggestions to fix them.
I stopped doing that decades ago.
Are you fucking serious? This is the point at which anyone who knows anything about computers should be face-palming themselves. One of the primary functions of a compiler is to check for valid syntax. It does it better and quicker than you do. 1. You are lying if you are saying you don;t use a compiler to detect syntax errors. 2. You are a fucking idiot for thinking this makes you seem smart.
So keep minimizing the damage your bad reading skills bring to the table... because stupid is as stupid does.
My position indicates what I bring to the table. I get to choose the most interesting projects, and I am who is called when something needs to get done right.
Keep trying to make your useless skill set seem valuable. Anyone who has ever written any significant amount of code can see through your bullshit.
Proofreading is tedious. I can do it well when I have to, and prefer not to when it is unimportant (e.g. in a slashdot comment), because I value my time and effort and would prefer to spend it on more worthwhile things. The only downside to not proofreading is when people like you try to use mistakes that I would have caught proofreading as an ad hominem attack. This is a downside that I think is more than compensated by the benefit of my time. Most sane people understand that a slashdot comment is not the same as an important document that should be carefully proofread.
I am a software engineer. I create things. I'm sure you latch on your "amazing" ability to proofread because you are otherwise talentless. My syntax errors while coding are caught by the compiler. This is more efficient than proofreading. Other people at my company can spend their time doing documentation. I can do it, and do it well, when it is necessary. Otherwise I would prefer spending my time being productive.
You are like a receptionist who thinks that the doctor would rather be a receptionist like yourself if only he could improve his handwriting.
It would just be sad, if not for the fact that you use it as a juvenile debate strategy. This makes it pathetic.
I am not embarrassed by errors I make while typing in an informal forum like slashdot. I would be embarrassed if I had such low intellectual ability as to need to resort to ad hominem attacks like you apparently need to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Carly Fiorina gave the commencement speech for my college graduation. Her speech centered around the idea that my/our generation was the reality TV generation, and that our biggest challenge would be to successfully differentiate between reality and reality TV.
Fuck you Carly Fiorina. You suck. I hope you lose. Although you seem to be pretty well suited to be a politician.
I don't think it has anything to do with facebook, twitter, and instagram. I am 35 and I don't use any of those things. Have you stayed current with new technology? Hardly any area of programming has been static for the last 40 years.
Well I was 8. So I don't think that that kind of news would have gotten to me.
You don't always get a response like this from someone, even with Islam. There have been a lot of draw Muhammad events, and relatively few incidents end like this. I can't even recall a single event like this (where Christians are willing to murder over blasphemy) happening for Christianity in my lifetime. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it does seem like Islam has the top score for avenging blasphemy through murder (at least recently).
Its not that simple. The legal and property protections offered by a trade secret, a legally recognized type of intellectual property, is lost. The owner deprived of its benefits.
Obviously the owner is deprived of the benefits of a trade secret once it is no longer secret. All I am saying is that this benefit was not stolen.
That is a title not a trade secret. Again a trade secret is a legally defined type of intellectual property that offers the owner specific legal rights and privileges. For example something in the process that Ford uses to manufacture those trucks. A Ford employee could not take that process to Toyota.
I am not arguing that the title of "America's best selling car" and a trade secret are legally equivalent. I am saying that they are logically analogous. A person may derive great pleasure form owning "America's best selling car", and if it ceases to be so, that person is deprived of that benefit. Whether that person is legally entitled to those benefits or not is another matter.
The owner was not deprived of the trade secrets. The owner still has all the information. It's just not secret anymore.
Let's say I buy a Ford F series truck. It's "America's best selling car". Now lets say a Toyota model gains the title. Was an "America's best selling car" stolen from me? I used to have one, and now I don't. I still have the same car I always had. It's just not the most popular anymore
When you jump the turnstile in a subway, you are taking up room in a potentially crowded train and lowering the quality of service for paying customers. You are consuming resources without paying for them. That is still the same concept as theft of a physical object. Copying is different than stealing in that no additional resources are consumed.
I find the glance to be rather neutral (as far as sexually suggestive glances go). Maybe your perception of her glance as being sexually suggestive is due to your own issues. I don't doubt that the picture will make some people feel uncomfortable. I am not even saying it is appropriate for high school. All I am saying is that I disagree with your assessment of the facial expression in this picture as sexually suggestive. I think you are incorrectly inferring this from the picture because you know what magazine it's from and whats in the rest of the picture. If this picture wasn't famous, I don't think anyone would care. It would just be one of a billion pretty faces we see every day all around us in media.
Poker is only a game of psychology to things with the ability to exploit and be exploited by psychology. To a computer, poker can just be all math. a computer can also try to analyze behavior to look for patterns (e.g. like tells), in essence to play more like a human, but this also opens up the door to being tricked like a human. The computer may not be as good at playing like a human, but the human absolutely sucks at playing like a computer, and a computer always has to option to keep the games all math.
computers also have random number generators that are way better than those of humans.
Luckily for the computer, no one can tell if a computer is bluffing either.
American workers by mandating that positions can only be filled by H-1B workers when no qualified American — at any wage — can be found to fill the position.
I don't think that a job exists that some American would not be willing to take for $1 billion dollars.
The following jobs where it would be easy to find *some* American willing to do for $1 billion:
1. Be raped to death (with he proceeds going to their family).
2. Kill their whole family (with the proceeds going to themselves).
3. Being the 2nd or 3rd person in a human centipede.
4. Being eaten to death by Hannibal Lecter.
5. Being fed to themselves to death by Hannibal Lecter.
I'm obviously not saying tuition free public schools don't have other problems (especially in America), but that one particular aspect of tuition based schools has a problem that the tuition free schools don't.
The free market isn't the problem. The problem is that legislators should not be allowed to sell their power on the free market. If a congressman wants to auction off influence on ebay, the problem isn't ebay.
Uber backs the legislation, saying the bill would promote innovation and keep Uber drivers and passengers safe, said Meghan Joyce, Uber East Coast general manager, in a statement. Massachusetts residents have shown they support ride-hailing and Lyft will work with the state to pass legislation that maintains this transportation option, according to the company.
The main innovation of Uber and Lyft is that it bypassed taxi legislation. It introduced a supply/demand based pricing system (which presumably bypasses legislation on pricing). It does not limit the amount of drivers that can be on the road (bypassing the legislation requiring taxis to have medallions designed to limit the supply of drivers). I don't think the government would have considered these to be innovations until it worked better than the existing corrupt taxi system.
I am not saying that that paying students never fail out of college. I am saying that the decision to fail a student (at the macro level not the micro level) is a financial decision. Not failing a student generates continued revenue, but if the student is incompetent and graduates there is a cost in terms of devaluing of the product the college has for sale (a diploma). There is also a financial benefit to failing a student if the student is forced to enroll in more terms and pay more tuition (assuming they don't just drop out or transfer).
They don't want a bunch of incompetent kids waiving their (now apparently worthless) diplomas around, but they also can't have professors failing entire classes. Both are bad for business. No one wants a worthless degree and no one wants to spend money going to a school where they have a small chance of graduating (i.e. getting a return on their investment).
I don't think academia is always *just* a facade. I am sure many academic institutions actually do a great job teaching students, and have the integrity to fail students even if it means they get less tuition money.
I don't think this is true as a whole. I went to a college where the CS department was very good about failing people and expelling cheaters, etc. However other departments in the same college and even CS departments in other colleges within the same university had rampant cheating.
The facade I am referring to is the fact that the illusion of academic integrity is more important to actual academic integrity as a whole because of the financial disincentive to fail your paying customers.
To me this is similar to the facade of ethics in congress. Congress is in charge of ethics investigations of it's members, but both parties basically have a truce not to investigate each other without consent of the other party. So basically democrats won't investigate ethics violations of republicans unless the republicans want to do it, and vice versa. Only the most egregious offenders that are abandoned by their own party actually get investigated.
You DID say that software documentation was less important than writing code.
Are you not able to understand the difference between "less important" and "not important"?
Sometimes, it's better to write the documentation first, then the implementation. But you don't care - "It's not my job. My time is too valuable."
Sometimes it's better for a surgeon to clean the bathrooms. I don't make a habbit of making "never/always" style claims.
Good documentation, done either before or concurrently, shortens the time needed to code it right, and often leads to getting it right the first time.
I don't doubt that there are people that can't write good code without writing documentation first. But it only shortens the time needed to produce a finished product for people with that particular deficiency.
Furthermore, this is still irrelevant given that my argument is that pretty anybody can do the documentation (it is a *less* valuable skill).
It should also make it clear what the edge cases are and how they are handled, because a cryptic error code isn't enough.
Software done right doesn't have cryptic error codes. It has consistent intuitive behavior. And like I already said, the documentation gets done, just not by me.
Just from a probability perspective, it seems more likely to get one bad professor than 30 bad students. Obviously there are always going to be some bad apples, but most courses don;t devolve to this.
I was in 2 classes with rampant cheating. I didn't participate. One class was just an ethnomusicology elective. The other was a digital logic circuit lab, that I was pretty good at to begin with. I'd like to think I wouldn't cheat even if I had a strong incentive, but I was never in that position.
In my other classes, cheating was an instant expulsion (maybe with 1 second chance if you cried a lot). You didn't even want to be suspected of cheating, because the professors would just report you and let the (whoever) decide if it was true.
Overall there was a general atmosphere that the path of least resistance was learning the material (which would no doubt be vitally important in the subsequent classes anyway). That's the way it should be.
There was a big group of Koreans that managed to keep cheating for a few quarters without getting caught, but that fizzled out when we got passed the remedial stuff and all the tests just became open book, and no longer trivially easy to cheat on even if you wanted to.
By the end, the closest thing to cheating was people getting luck+sympathy, like turning in a shit thesis with 1 judge seeing it for what it was, 1 judge feeling sorry for the person, and the other judge not showing up and defaulting to a pass. 2-1 == pass.
It's the American way, the administration bails you out if you pay their salary.
We don't bail out people, if there is not something in it for the people doing the bailing-of-out.
We bail out large investment banks that donate to political campaigns and swap managers with the treasury department, but we don't bail out people who can't pay their mortgage.
I have a hard time believing that every single student was cheating. There must have been at least one kid who had strict immigrant parents in the class.
If the kids pass, they have succeeded in degrading the value of the diploma that they (or more likely their parents) are paying for.
The kids will be lucky if they fail the class, and that it is public. At least a prospective employer might entertain the possibility that those kids actually ended up learning the material before graduating.
The K-12 system is loosely test-based. Meaning that the job of the school is (partly) to help kids get a good score on a set of standardized tests (culminating in the SAT, SAT2, etc). There is a disincentive to merely pretend to prepare the kids for these tests. The school is paid by the state, not the students directly.
The bachelor program is based on internal grades. The university can give out whatever grades they want to. The students pay the university tuition. There is an incentive for the school to give good grades to the students (i.e. their paying customers). The only disincentive to this practice, is that it destroys the facade that the kids are actually learning, and therefore value of the diploma they are purchasing. It is in the interest of both the students and the school to keep up this facade. The students can pretend to know things, and the university can profit.
Unfortunately for these students, they don't realize that if they are not going to at least pretend (much less realize) that they are learning, then they may was well just go out partying with their tuition money rather than wasting it on a worthless (made so by them) degree.
Actually, sometimes it's better to take the time to do the docs yourself, rather than try to explain what's going on to someone who didn't write it. Not only doesn't it take much more time, but the quality is better, and then someone who has to maintain the docs at least has a solid base to go forward on.
We have an excellent team of people writing documents. They don't seem to have any problems.
Sure, you can do things like comments /* THERE BE DRAGONS HERE */ and /* IT LOOKS WRONG BUT IT ISN'T */, but those are the very areas I wouldn't trust someone else to prepare the docs on from scratch. It's also good to put example usage in the docs, something that a person who didn't write it may very well get wrong.
Also, nobody tests 10 million lines of fresh code in one shot - unless you're really into spaghetti code.
We have a 10 million line codebase that is constantly being updated.
I've been doing it long enough that I don't get very much in the way of syntax errors - possibly because my reading skills are obviously better than yours.
1. detecting syntax errors before the compiler does, is basically a useless skill. Congratulations. 2. Your reading skills are not better than mine. As I said, I don't proofread what I write. (i.e. I'm not using my reading skills in slashdot). What's the point of having reading skills without the ability to comprehend? But having useless skills is sort of your thing I guess.
Attention to detail, expressive code, and the ability to explain it for future use (even yourself 6 months down the road) via docs is what makes a good programmer and on that you fail
Now explain how not proofreading slashdot comments before submitting them has any bearing on the code I write. Do you really believe it's impossible to give different amounts of effort to those 2 things?
and the biggest fail is that you don't seem to understand that programming and development is more than just banging it out and throwing it over the wall.
You seem to be under the false impression that it is necessary for each person to perform all the duties of software development from start to finish rather than employing division of labor.
I never said good documentation isn't necessary. It is necessary. I said it is able to be done by nearly anyone (like you). So it is more efficient to have it done by people with no other useful skills (like you).
I am very good at explaining how software works to people, as evidenced by the excellent documentation that exists for my code (mostly written by other people).
I don't proofread my own comments, but I comprehend the things I do read. You should give it a try sometime.
Another fool who doesn't consider documentation as being productive.
Given my salary and that pretty much anyone can do it, it's a waste of my time, and my company's budget.
Also, being able to proofread has helped me spot and fix lots of bugs in other people's code, whether c, c++, php, whatever.
How long does it take you to proofread 10 million lines of code? I don't know if you've heard the news, but computers can do a lot of the tedious work for you. There are compilers, static analysis tools, memory analysis tools, debuggers, etc. They catch way more errors than a human ever could by proofreading.
Doing a compile just to find a typo is lame.
It finds *all* the typos, and having an ide which is constantly compiling the code as you edit it, finds the typos in real time and offers suggestions to fix them.
I stopped doing that decades ago.
Are you fucking serious? This is the point at which anyone who knows anything about computers should be face-palming themselves. One of the primary functions of a compiler is to check for valid syntax. It does it better and quicker than you do. 1. You are lying if you are saying you don;t use a compiler to detect syntax errors. 2. You are a fucking idiot for thinking this makes you seem smart.
So keep minimizing the damage your bad reading skills bring to the table ... because stupid is as stupid does.
My position indicates what I bring to the table. I get to choose the most interesting projects, and I am who is called when something needs to get done right.
Keep trying to make your useless skill set seem valuable. Anyone who has ever written any significant amount of code can see through your bullshit.
Proofreading is tedious. I can do it well when I have to, and prefer not to when it is unimportant (e.g. in a slashdot comment), because I value my time and effort and would prefer to spend it on more worthwhile things. The only downside to not proofreading is when people like you try to use mistakes that I would have caught proofreading as an ad hominem attack. This is a downside that I think is more than compensated by the benefit of my time. Most sane people understand that a slashdot comment is not the same as an important document that should be carefully proofread.
I am a software engineer. I create things. I'm sure you latch on your "amazing" ability to proofread because you are otherwise talentless. My syntax errors while coding are caught by the compiler. This is more efficient than proofreading. Other people at my company can spend their time doing documentation. I can do it, and do it well, when it is necessary. Otherwise I would prefer spending my time being productive.
You are like a receptionist who thinks that the doctor would rather be a receptionist like yourself if only he could improve his handwriting.
It would just be sad, if not for the fact that you use it as a juvenile debate strategy. This makes it pathetic.
I am not embarrassed by errors I make while typing in an informal forum like slashdot. I would be embarrassed if I had such low intellectual ability as to need to resort to ad hominem attacks like you apparently need to do.