I'm personally in favor of allowing tuition debt to be forgiven if needed. We allow it for mortgages, cars, and boats. Allow it for tuition but also revoke the degree that was achieved by the loans in default. People should not continue to benefit from the education certificate if they defaulted on the loans that enabled it.
Often times the new functionality can do the same, but does it differently. Or does the same but makes it much easier to perform the tasks. I don't know about you, but I find it significantly easier to write a diagramming utility using WPF than GDI+. Sure it can be done using GDI/GID+, but WPF is more epxressive in many respects. Sure I can write my line of bussines app using ActiveX controls or MFC, even WinForms. But I find it easier to write pretty apps in WPF than with WinForms/GID+ (even with 3rd party controls).
Now, if you want to talk about ODBC -> DAO -> ADO -> ADO.NET -> Linq2Sql -> EF -> Who knows what else, then we can talk. They do not have their act together regarding data access, it changes way too quickly. But, at least you can still use ADO.NET with any current.NET app if you don't want to use Linq2Sql or EF.
I'm an architect for high performance computing back-ends and have created frameworks myself for the company, or taken over existing. When envisioning and prototyping the next framework that will take us into the future, I've had to sacrifice backwards compatibility in some cases too, simply because the current way is inexpressive enough to accomplish the new simplified or better way of doing things, or the design itself is the problem and there is no easy way to work around that without 10 million adapters and bridges.
I don't make excuses for Microsoft, nor do I always like that I have to learn something only to relearn it again, but I'm sure there is some of that with Java and Linux as well as Windows and.NET. I welcome that we don't have to use WinForms anymore, I much prefer WPF.
I also welcome that I'm not forced to use EF or Linq2Sql because I think plain ADO.NET is better in some cases (or I'm just showing my age). In any case, Microsoft does have a take-over-the-world syndrome that is downright disheartening at times.
There are times where multiple languages can be beneficial. For example, I'm primarily a C# developer but for the problem domains I must solve, sometimes a Fortran.NET or Prolog.NET would be much more suitable than C#. Prolog is better at logic and fuzzy logic, and Fortran is clearly better at mathematics. I'm not terribly interesting in changing IDE's or using different compilers and trying to interop with multiple languages, but in the.NET variety, if they were available, it would be very convenient to use the various syntaxes to express myself more efficiently.
Supporting such a hybrid could be an issue for some. But in general, I don't think C# is good for everything (it can certainly do everything, but C-derived languages aren't good at expressing everything -- such as SQL or Logic, or Functional, for example). Lisp isn't very good at expressing everything, either. But you could use the best language (or domain) for the task and be more productive that way.
Actually, for me, one who likes to own DVD's, I'm okay to ditch the collection as long as I can stream it online. I've been aching for a way to pay some fee (I'd rather not pay-per-view), and have access to a complete inventory of content I can watch/stream anytime I want. To me, that is the same as having it on my shelf, albeit I'm at the mercy of my ISP and Net Nuetrality. I'm also at the mercy of the content provider to change their pricing structure and limit availability of certain content to which I'll be interested. Also, Netflix doesn't stream the "extras" but not that I care, I don't watch them most of the time, anyway. But in DVD's that have A and B versions of a scene, Netflix doesn't provide that also.
My larger point though, is eventually someone will have a complete library of content that I can subscribe to and stream whenever I choose, and for me, that is the same as having a complete library of DVD's, and is more cost-effective then renting the media or buying the media and eliminates the desire to pirate the media (for many I'm sure, but not everyone).
Oreilly can do that because they produce and publish the content, for the most part, or other producers involved in the Safari scheme. But Amazon produces nothing except an ebook reader. So it will not be so easy for Amazon to offer a subscription service to Kindle. It would probably be too costly to license all the books, or convert the books into ebook format for those that are not.
That's the reason I stopped purchasing ebooks. Back in 2001 I purchased some ebooks and them my system crashed, and all the ebooks I had purchased (about $300 worth) I had to purchase again. In addition, I purchased a very expensive college textbook (another $300 book) that had an ebook version of itself, which is the only reason I purchased the book, so I can read it elsewhere electronically. Only, the service that activates the book was no longer in business and could not activate the book. Since I had opened the CD, the book was no longer refundable. After that point, I do not purchase DRM encumbered media, period.
My concern with the Kindle isn't actually DRM in this case. I could accept that I must use a dedicated device to read, and if that device is lost or stolen, I hear that you get a new device and can download your books again, so long as Amazon still supports that in your time of need. Hence another problem with DRM encumbered media, you can't look at how things are today, you must look at the possibility of the publisher changing its terms or going under or being sold to another company (such as the media producers themselves) and being more hostile to your desires.
With Kindle, my biggest problem is the cost of technology books. They are nearly 10% lower than their printed counterparts ($50-70 books in general). It is not worth it when I can purchase the same books used for roughly $15-20 or even less. I have a personal library of more than 900 programming related books and while I used to purchase them new, tha last 300 or so are all used and about 60% less than even Amazon's already discounted price new. Kindle, is nearly the price new so it is not cost effective for me to purchase. I think that the distribution costs of ebooks are nearly zero, and the production cost to write and copy-edit are so low, that the price of ebooks that can't be resold should be roughly 10% of the original retail price. At that, I might purchase.
But any higher, I don't see any bargains in paying $350+ for the reader, than nearly 90% the price of the book new, and possibly losing my ability to use them in the future if Amazon gets stung by the economy or whatever. Also, most of my tech books must be read in color. Sometimes, for the higher quality paper in some books, adds to the experience of the book in question though the material should speak for itself, I always enjoyed reading high quality prints as opposed to those on recycled newspaper.
Until then, I'll just keep buying paper books. Plus, I can donate or sell the ones that I truly have no use for anymore. Try that with a Kindle book.
My wife works this kind of schedule, she's an IT manager type. Her company respects the days off, it is a company perk for those who choose. More importantly, it helps her to wind down in an otherwise stressful position. She's happy, I'm happy.
I picked up two rigs using Core i7 920 with 12GB RAM and ATI Radeon 4850 and 24" monitors. I could not be happier. These are by far the best machines I've owned so far. Oh, I should mention, though they shipped with Vista 64-bit, being an MSDN subscriber and software developer of high computing applications, I ended up installing Windows Server 2008 Datacenter 64-bit and it works flawlessly (I enabled the Aero theme and glass)
I know it is anecdotal but the majority of people I've worked with that are within about 5 years of college graduation with CS degree are among the least capable I've worked with. Among those that are self-taught and haven't a degree (or have a degree in an unrelated field), within their first 5 years or so are also among the least capable I've worked with. Those with degrees tend to be more stubborn mainly due to their indoctrination.
I don't mean any of this negatively. I myself am attempting to get my CS degree (dual computer engineering), after 15 years of practicing it and working up the ranks. For me, it is because it is what I want; I do not require it. There is little that I've been learning in these classes that I didn't already know. I studied all the books and topics on my own for many years before I took the classes in school. Being a practitioner I actually find the university frustrating as I have to be dumbed down to get a grade. When I complete an assignment differently than expected because there was a defect in the textbook (that I opted to correct) I get a bad grade (granted I wasn't asked to correct the mistake, but I don't like being forced into servitude, either, especially after being freely creative for so long before the class); funny considering revisions or errata of the same textbook eventually recognized and corrected the same defect. My statements are more a fact of the state of education and that I believe it does not truly adequately prepare students for life as a programmer. Rightfully so, CS is not software engineering, but most people opt for it because it is the closest available topic.
I do not have a college education, am a sr. software architect for a fortune 500 company, and I often end up teaching some of those CS undergrads a thing or two about when and when not to use certain data structures/algorithms, optimizations, or to stop thinking like a robot and make up their own mind about how to solve a tricky problem. I sometimes hold training for some of them and discuss how to augment the functionality of some data structures and algorithms to solve variations of the problems that those structures and algos are good at. I'd think they would have been through that already.
Electrical and computer engineers are different altogether, they are truly smarter than the typical CS grad of the one's I've encountered or worked with.
Most don't even know why GOTO statements are "evil". They never read the book (or heard of it) yet they religiously hold firm to avoid them because they would have had bad grades in class if they had used them. In other words, they are shoveled a level of dogma and do not quite think for themselves. Then when they come to me, they want me (or other mentor types) to hold their hand while they are afraid to do anything for themselves until some point in time where a light bulb goes off in their head and they realize that it is okay to think for themselves.
Not to stereotype, it is just an observation. Degree or no agree, certain people are made for code and other technical wizardry and others are along for the ride. In either case, their first few years in the work force and they are not very capable (with the odd exceptions here and there).
I've come to realize that CS actually really isn't about programming as much as people think it is. It's more or less a type of preparation but their first few years they don't have an anchor with which to apply the knowledge and think for themselves. Most people will need guidance their first few years; CS degree or not.
When it comes to hiring, that is the reason I don't care so much about whether they have a degree. If they can demonstrate ability to fill the open position competently, I'll hire them. It is not always easy to know whether the person is a good candidate, but when it comes to interviewing for positions related to high-performance computing and heavy parallel computations/computing, it is not so easy to fake your way through an interview. You can either do it or not.
The RIAA is supposed to be a non-profit organization. Non-profit organizations do not seek to maximize profits or they can lose their non profit status with the SEC.
As a software architect for a large company you've all heard of (though not a software company), I will have to agree with this 100%. Most engineers respect the company architects (and some even aspire to become one in the future). Being a relatively new architect myself (2 years) I understand. Our engineers really only have time to focus on their task and as per the structure of our company, often have to follow the blueprints, guidelines, end examples the architecture team produces. They don't get to do much research and experimenting with complex technologies and implementations, we take care of that for them. So otherwise exciting tasks become mundane when there isn't much for them to solve and also when they aren't learning about the "why's" of it all.
When I bring the engineer(s) into our higher level architectural meetings and discussions (usually as a fly on the wall but often they'll participate with great insights), suddenly opens up a whole new world to them (I'm the only architect on our team of 5 that does this, BTW). They now see the business perspective, what problems are being solved, when there are 20 different projects going on that they are not even aware of, they can see now how it all ties together, and most importantly, they learn. There is nothing better you can do to motivate a bored (or happy) engineer to even higher levels than by allowing them to participate in some way with design discussions. On occasion, when I'm feeling lazy or have already been-there-done-that (the selfish in me), I'll delegate some design tasks to an engineer that participated (usually if that engineer wants to become an architect in the future, not all of them feel they are "worthy" or care), that also helps as a great motivator. When I do that, I merely "stay in the loop" and more or less mentor them, but otherwise stay out of their way unless there is a good reason to take a course change. Only experience and exposure can teach a developer about good design (when you must support 100 million+ financial transactions and complex computations daily) and most developers who haven't been exposed to such reliability and high-volume requirements won't have a clue what truly works.
I had only worked with ~35k daily peak volume previous to becoming an architect in this company and everything I thought about what works and does not changed when I had to produce designs and implementations that can scale to ~400 million daily peak and ~100 million "typical" volume.
I only understand that now as an architect. At the companies where I was an engineer or even Sr. engineer, it wasn't the company's culture to allow developers/coders to participate in any meetings except the ones where they are handed a new task. That'll sap the life out of a good engineer very quickly.
These are creative people, and will resist things like status reports and hard work schedules.
I'm a creative person and I can get fired for resisting status reports and missing deadlines. I don't see either as an obstacle to work, no matter what intensity of hatred I have for both. It is the frequency and detail level of status reports that become obstacles. It is also the ridiculousness of certain deadlines that become obstacles.
We're too sue happy in this country. Years ago, if I had experienced any major customer service problems with a company I would complain or write a letter or whatever. Years go by where I read about how everyone is suing and my endless thoughts about what a tragedy it has become to be in this country and potentially be sued for anything and that I don't want to ever be like that.
A few weeks ago I had problems with a major OEM accidentally charging me 2.5x the invoice amount for some desktop workstations I purchased. When trying to resolve it through their customer service and the folks in India saying they cannot access my records (for 5 days straight at all hours of the day)... I eventually contacted a sales rep in the US that had instant access to my records and cancelled the order then created a new one. Instead of crediting the incorrect charge, it charged again, in addition to the new correct charge. Actually, it was only holding the funds and hasn't charged but totaled $20k in pending state holding my card so close to the limit that my monthly revolvers would have failed. My immediate reaction was to call an attorney rather than call them up and attempt to resolve it. In the end, their India support center still couldn't access my records but when I managed to contact the sales rep in US he had access to my records instantly again and the issue was resolved after the OEM called my creditor card issuer.
My point here is merely: it has become the American way, so-to-speak, to sue because it nearly has come to the point where either a) many are opportunists and see it more likely to win a civil lawsuit than the lottery, b) just have to make a statement and throw their superiority around, or more likely c) it has gotten to the point where the threat of a lawsuit or the act of a lawsuit is nearly the only way to get results these days because business and customers alike (or citezens/aliens) just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
Regarding the merchant in question, for all I know he does have a filthy shop (I've seen many in my day, just watch Kitchen Nightmares) and if so, the correct response should be to clean it up before a health inspector arrives. Will he sue the health inspector for writing in a formal statement that the shop is filthy? But if it is clean and someone is making such accusations and customers decide to go elsewhere, perhaps a lawsuit is warranted if the perp refuses to make an apology.
* Pretty Baby * Not all oranges are the only fruit
Those sho a bit of young girls in questionable scenes, yet they are rather artistic and make the story line artistic.
* Lolita?
No nudity, but quite suggestive. Again, the story lines are not meant to around but can be found arousing by some.
Why aren't they banning Amazon or Netflix from selling/renting those movies?
With cartoons, no actual child was involved and no child harmed.
What is with governments these days trying to protect us from ourselves and every conceivable possible evil when humanity has done just fine for thousands of years?
Granted, exploitation should be punishable. But not every act of child nudity is an exploitation. Just visit a naturalist beach. I don't see the government shutting them down just because children might be nude there? Family nudity? While I don't practice it I have many (foreign non-American) friends that do and I've been at their house many times.
While I have at times found their frank openness about nudity and even young kids so willingly fondling themselves to be a bit discomforting at first, for someone who was raised that you don't mention, think, or show your pee-pee/toodles ever because it is a sin, sex is a sin, touching your self is a sin, porn is a sin, flirting is a sin, crap, I later then found it refreshing that someone doesn't fee artificial inhibitions and openly expresses or allows it, without flaunting it or being perverted.
Here in America, we are still very much tied to our puritan heritage and I think we should just get over it. Sex happens. Nudity is natural (we're born that way), so why be so shameful about it?
I like your perspective. I never thought about it that way. Though, certain types of positions should require a degree: law, medical, structural engineering, pharmaceutical, rocket science, etc. But technical roles such as programming and administrating I do not think should require a degree. Vocational training may qualify also, as it is more specialized. But on-the-job trained or self-taught people will suffice if they can demonstrate their ability to perform.
In the Navy, if you're just an enlisted sailor, that might be the case. You wouldn't believe the bureaucracy they have to survive on a daily basis. But if you are motivated enough to make it to a SEAL team, we had much less bureaucracy to contend with and much more "get it done". Of course, that was back in 1994-1996 era. I don't know how it is now.
The majority of the worst programmers/developers I've worked with had degrees, the absolute worst had doctorates or masters degrees in computer science or math. Most of the best developers and architects I've worked with were self taught and had no college degree. In fact, there was one person that we interviewed a while back that I really liked. But three of the interviewers felt like you did, no degree, no job. We discussed many times whether we should hire him over some other people that had Masters degrees but lacked experience. In the end, we hired the person without the college degree and that individual was the best thing that ever happened to the company. He met every deadline, had motivation and imagination like no one else I've met, could solve nearly every problem creatively and very cleanly. Had an incredible ability to interpret what you really want in a spec as opposed to how you describe it. Looking at support tickets, most of what he put into production had very few problems except where a business requirement was misunderstood but otherwise, you could trust that if he implemented the functionality, it was ready to go production when he said it was. That individual understood more about technology trends, design patterns, algorithms and data structures than some of my own college professors. In short, he was one of the best hiring decisions we made for that company and one of the best programmers I ever met. The company later also hired the individual (who had two master in computer science and mathematics) that it wanted to over the same candidate. The company had to let him go about a year later for lack of ability to complete assigned tasks and those he completed often were not reliable.
If anything, while I really don't care whether people have a degree or not (for business type software development positions or most types of heavy-duty server application development); I will pick the one with more experience regardless, depending on whether they can demonstrate the requisite skills and personality. I usually end up interviewing people for positions where they must be technically sound (much higher than average technical abilities) and be able to work very well with people because they will need to jump through hoops (as you put it). Otherwise I have no real bias. If the candidate can demonstrate his/her ability to perform and survive in the work environment, then I'll hire the candidate.
Me, I don't have a degree either. After 12 years I have worked up to be a software architect for one of the credit bureaus. Interviewing for the position was very difficult. Our technical ability must be top-notch to succeed in this company as well as our people skills. I'm accustomed to start ups. This is actually the first large corporation I've worked for and I can say, jumping through hoops is an understatement. But I do fine.
I have been attending college part time. All my schedule could afford is one or two classes per semester and it has taken me 7 years to get finally get an associates degree. I stopped there. I work long enough hours at work than to leave and attend school for 3 hours two or three times per week plus homework. It was beginning to affect my marriage and my ability to keep my skills sharp at work. I don't learn on the job, I learn at home. So I stopped attended school.
You likely wouldn't hire me for that. A lot of others that only look for paper also wouldn't. But can pull my own weight and have outperformed many of my peers wherever I've worked. I also have produced or played very large role in launching many products into the market place that have succeeded very well. But I likely wouldn't be happy working for a place that is so superficial that if you don't have a degree, you don't get a job (for the type of work that I do).
Having a degree does not translate into knowing how to perform your job well. Of course, not having a degree does not mean you can't do can't job well, either. I suppose all things being equal between
I actually paid for classmates for the past 4 years. I'm annoyed that I pay and they still bombard me with advertisements when I visit and am logged in. But, I have been able to get in contact with former school mates and military friends than I could find through any other means. It worked for a while but not everyone uses classmates and it seems to be growing stale. They require payment if I would send a message to the recipient. But I don't feel ripped off nor do I care. I get out of their service what I wanted though their price is hefty for what it has to offer (including adverts when you're already paying).
Per the article summary: The copyright for the content is held by 'Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501c(4) organization'.
You can imagine my heart almost stopped when I thought I had confirmed my suspicions about the conspiracy when I read that part about "Osama Bin-Laden" but then after cleaning my glasses and reading again I realized it just Obama-Biden. Whew!! That was a close one...
.NET Framework 1.x is completely different than 2.x, mainly because IL instructions and so on changed a bit with the introduction of Generics. They are relatively "sourcecode" compatible except where a few classes/methods/interfaces where marked obsolete by a replacement iteration/improvement that does require referencing a new assembly. But, for the most part, the new bits are completely optional and you can suppress the [Obsolete] compiler warning if you choose.
With the addition of.NET 3.0 (WPF, WF, WCF, and CardSpace), is really built on top of.NET 2.0 and basically introduces new capabilities. There are no new compiler features or language features otherwise. If you don't use any of the.NET 3.0 features, then you do not need to install.NET 3.0..NET 3.5 is built in top of.NET 2.0. They did change the compiler to have more language features and they did make significant performance enhancements in the JIT, but otherwise, it is.NET 2.0. You can actually use all of the new C# 3.0 features and target.NET 2.0 except the extension methods and LINQ (which requires the use of Extension methods). You can create projects that target the.NET 3.5 framework and still reference only.NET 2.0 assemblies as long as you don't use anything that's new to.NET 3.5 (or.NET 3.0).
But it will be hard to do so because by definition, a.NET 3.5 application is something of Microsoft AJAX or WPF, WCF, WF, etc. Also, later.NET frameworks are cumulitive include everything previous, and are 99% backwards compatible. At least in the many multimillion line projects I've participated in, not one line of code has had to change for newer releases.
As to whether.NET is buggy or not. I've noticed just as many JSP and Flash and PHP websites that were buggy and prone to crashing, too. Considering that I've mostly worked on large enterprise projects that must sustain tens of millions of transactions/page requests per day (I'm currently an architect for one that must sustain 400 million),.NET is quite capable. It is just as easy to write crappy.NET code as it is crappy Java code and PHP..NET make the problem more visible by rendering an internal exception into the HTML stream if the developer does not handle the exception (very bad practice). In all, I don't think.NET is any more buggy than any other language. The framework is solid if not quirky or lacking in some areas. It is the programmers, ultimately, that write good or bad code, or adhere to standards and good practice or none at all.
When you see buggy.NET applications, it is not because.NET sucks, it is because the programmer who wrote the application sucks.
You will have to declare the $5000 as income and pay tax. Donating it back won't reduce your income by $5000, but by the percentage of your tax bracket. So if you end up in the 25% tax bracket, you can subtract 25% from the $5000 and still have to pay taxes on the remaining amount. It isn't all that different than donating $5000 to a religious organization. The entire $5k is not subtracted from your taxable liabilities, but is reduced by the percentage amount of your tax bracket. Using simpler math, donate $1,000 with 25% tax bracket, you'll have to still pay taxes on the remaining 75% (or $750). That is, unless it can magically (and legally) show up as a pre-tax deduction or tax credit (both of which reduce your tax liability by 100% of the amount credited -- such as 401k contribution). I'd love to see that happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm personally in favor of allowing tuition debt to be forgiven if needed. We allow it for mortgages, cars, and boats. Allow it for tuition but also revoke the degree that was achieved by the loans in default. People should not continue to benefit from the education certificate if they defaulted on the loans that enabled it.
Often times the new functionality can do the same, but does it differently. Or does the same but makes it much easier to perform the tasks. I don't know about you, but I find it significantly easier to write a diagramming utility using WPF than GDI+. Sure it can be done using GDI/GID+, but WPF is more epxressive in many respects. Sure I can write my line of bussines app using ActiveX controls or MFC, even WinForms. But I find it easier to write pretty apps in WPF than with WinForms/GID+ (even with 3rd party controls).
Now, if you want to talk about ODBC -> DAO -> ADO -> ADO.NET -> Linq2Sql -> EF -> Who knows what else, then we can talk. They do not have their act together regarding data access, it changes way too quickly. But, at least you can still use ADO.NET with any current .NET app if you don't want to use Linq2Sql or EF.
I'm an architect for high performance computing back-ends and have created frameworks myself for the company, or taken over existing. When envisioning and prototyping the next framework that will take us into the future, I've had to sacrifice backwards compatibility in some cases too, simply because the current way is inexpressive enough to accomplish the new simplified or better way of doing things, or the design itself is the problem and there is no easy way to work around that without 10 million adapters and bridges.
I don't make excuses for Microsoft, nor do I always like that I have to learn something only to relearn it again, but I'm sure there is some of that with Java and Linux as well as Windows and .NET. I welcome that we don't have to use WinForms anymore, I much prefer WPF.
I also welcome that I'm not forced to use EF or Linq2Sql because I think plain ADO.NET is better in some cases (or I'm just showing my age). In any case, Microsoft does have a take-over-the-world syndrome that is downright disheartening at times.
There are times where multiple languages can be beneficial. For example, I'm primarily a C# developer but for the problem domains I must solve, sometimes a Fortran.NET or Prolog.NET would be much more suitable than C#. Prolog is better at logic and fuzzy logic, and Fortran is clearly better at mathematics. I'm not terribly interesting in changing IDE's or using different compilers and trying to interop with multiple languages, but in the .NET variety, if they were available, it would be very convenient to use the various syntaxes to express myself more efficiently.
Supporting such a hybrid could be an issue for some. But in general, I don't think C# is good for everything (it can certainly do everything, but C-derived languages aren't good at expressing everything -- such as SQL or Logic, or Functional, for example). Lisp isn't very good at expressing everything, either. But you could use the best language (or domain) for the task and be more productive that way.
Actually, for me, one who likes to own DVD's, I'm okay to ditch the collection as long as I can stream it online. I've been aching for a way to pay some fee (I'd rather not pay-per-view), and have access to a complete inventory of content I can watch/stream anytime I want. To me, that is the same as having it on my shelf, albeit I'm at the mercy of my ISP and Net Nuetrality. I'm also at the mercy of the content provider to change their pricing structure and limit availability of certain content to which I'll be interested. Also, Netflix doesn't stream the "extras" but not that I care, I don't watch them most of the time, anyway. But in DVD's that have A and B versions of a scene, Netflix doesn't provide that also.
My larger point though, is eventually someone will have a complete library of content that I can subscribe to and stream whenever I choose, and for me, that is the same as having a complete library of DVD's, and is more cost-effective then renting the media or buying the media and eliminates the desire to pirate the media (for many I'm sure, but not everyone).
Oreilly can do that because they produce and publish the content, for the most part, or other producers involved in the Safari scheme. But Amazon produces nothing except an ebook reader. So it will not be so easy for Amazon to offer a subscription service to Kindle. It would probably be too costly to license all the books, or convert the books into ebook format for those that are not.
That's the reason I stopped purchasing ebooks. Back in 2001 I purchased some ebooks and them my system crashed, and all the ebooks I had purchased (about $300 worth) I had to purchase again. In addition, I purchased a very expensive college textbook (another $300 book) that had an ebook version of itself, which is the only reason I purchased the book, so I can read it elsewhere electronically. Only, the service that activates the book was no longer in business and could not activate the book. Since I had opened the CD, the book was no longer refundable. After that point, I do not purchase DRM encumbered media, period.
My concern with the Kindle isn't actually DRM in this case. I could accept that I must use a dedicated device to read, and if that device is lost or stolen, I hear that you get a new device and can download your books again, so long as Amazon still supports that in your time of need. Hence another problem with DRM encumbered media, you can't look at how things are today, you must look at the possibility of the publisher changing its terms or going under or being sold to another company (such as the media producers themselves) and being more hostile to your desires.
With Kindle, my biggest problem is the cost of technology books. They are nearly 10% lower than their printed counterparts ($50-70 books in general). It is not worth it when I can purchase the same books used for roughly $15-20 or even less. I have a personal library of more than 900 programming related books and while I used to purchase them new, tha last 300 or so are all used and about 60% less than even Amazon's already discounted price new. Kindle, is nearly the price new so it is not cost effective for me to purchase. I think that the distribution costs of ebooks are nearly zero, and the production cost to write and copy-edit are so low, that the price of ebooks that can't be resold should be roughly 10% of the original retail price. At that, I might purchase.
But any higher, I don't see any bargains in paying $350+ for the reader, than nearly 90% the price of the book new, and possibly losing my ability to use them in the future if Amazon gets stung by the economy or whatever. Also, most of my tech books must be read in color. Sometimes, for the higher quality paper in some books, adds to the experience of the book in question though the material should speak for itself, I always enjoyed reading high quality prints as opposed to those on recycled newspaper.
Until then, I'll just keep buying paper books. Plus, I can donate or sell the ones that I truly have no use for anymore. Try that with a Kindle book.
I ordered them the day they became available, paid $1,399 each.
My wife works this kind of schedule, she's an IT manager type. Her company respects the days off, it is a company perk for those who choose. More importantly, it helps her to wind down in an otherwise stressful position. She's happy, I'm happy.
I picked up two rigs using Core i7 920 with 12GB RAM and ATI Radeon 4850 and 24" monitors. I could not be happier. These are by far the best machines I've owned so far. Oh, I should mention, though they shipped with Vista 64-bit, being an MSDN subscriber and software developer of high computing applications, I ended up installing Windows Server 2008 Datacenter 64-bit and it works flawlessly (I enabled the Aero theme and glass)
I know it is anecdotal but the majority of people I've worked with that are within about 5 years of college graduation with CS degree are among the least capable I've worked with. Among those that are self-taught and haven't a degree (or have a degree in an unrelated field), within their first 5 years or so are also among the least capable I've worked with. Those with degrees tend to be more stubborn mainly due to their indoctrination.
I don't mean any of this negatively. I myself am attempting to get my CS degree (dual computer engineering), after 15 years of practicing it and working up the ranks. For me, it is because it is what I want; I do not require it. There is little that I've been learning in these classes that I didn't already know. I studied all the books and topics on my own for many years before I took the classes in school. Being a practitioner I actually find the university frustrating as I have to be dumbed down to get a grade. When I complete an assignment differently than expected because there was a defect in the textbook (that I opted to correct) I get a bad grade (granted I wasn't asked to correct the mistake, but I don't like being forced into servitude, either, especially after being freely creative for so long before the class); funny considering revisions or errata of the same textbook eventually recognized and corrected the same defect. My statements are more a fact of the state of education and that I believe it does not truly adequately prepare students for life as a programmer. Rightfully so, CS is not software engineering, but most people opt for it because it is the closest available topic.
I do not have a college education, am a sr. software architect for a fortune 500 company, and I often end up teaching some of those CS undergrads a thing or two about when and when not to use certain data structures/algorithms, optimizations, or to stop thinking like a robot and make up their own mind about how to solve a tricky problem. I sometimes hold training for some of them and discuss how to augment the functionality of some data structures and algorithms to solve variations of the problems that those structures and algos are good at. I'd think they would have been through that already.
Electrical and computer engineers are different altogether, they are truly smarter than the typical CS grad of the one's I've encountered or worked with.
Most don't even know why GOTO statements are "evil". They never read the book (or heard of it) yet they religiously hold firm to avoid them because they would have had bad grades in class if they had used them. In other words, they are shoveled a level of dogma and do not quite think for themselves. Then when they come to me, they want me (or other mentor types) to hold their hand while they are afraid to do anything for themselves until some point in time where a light bulb goes off in their head and they realize that it is okay to think for themselves.
Not to stereotype, it is just an observation. Degree or no agree, certain people are made for code and other technical wizardry and others are along for the ride. In either case, their first few years in the work force and they are not very capable (with the odd exceptions here and there).
I've come to realize that CS actually really isn't about programming as much as people think it is. It's more or less a type of preparation but their first few years they don't have an anchor with which to apply the knowledge and think for themselves. Most people will need guidance their first few years; CS degree or not.
When it comes to hiring, that is the reason I don't care so much about whether they have a degree. If they can demonstrate ability to fill the open position competently, I'll hire them. It is not always easy to know whether the person is a good candidate, but when it comes to interviewing for positions related to high-performance computing and heavy parallel computations/computing, it is not so easy to fake your way through an interview. You can either do it or not.
The RIAA is supposed to be a non-profit organization. Non-profit organizations do not seek to maximize profits or they can lose their non profit status with the SEC.
As a software architect for a large company you've all heard of (though not a software company), I will have to agree with this 100%. Most engineers respect the company architects (and some even aspire to become one in the future). Being a relatively new architect myself (2 years) I understand. Our engineers really only have time to focus on their task and as per the structure of our company, often have to follow the blueprints, guidelines, end examples the architecture team produces. They don't get to do much research and experimenting with complex technologies and implementations, we take care of that for them. So otherwise exciting tasks become mundane when there isn't much for them to solve and also when they aren't learning about the "why's" of it all.
When I bring the engineer(s) into our higher level architectural meetings and discussions (usually as a fly on the wall but often they'll participate with great insights), suddenly opens up a whole new world to them (I'm the only architect on our team of 5 that does this, BTW). They now see the business perspective, what problems are being solved, when there are 20 different projects going on that they are not even aware of, they can see now how it all ties together, and most importantly, they learn. There is nothing better you can do to motivate a bored (or happy) engineer to even higher levels than by allowing them to participate in some way with design discussions. On occasion, when I'm feeling lazy or have already been-there-done-that (the selfish in me), I'll delegate some design tasks to an engineer that participated (usually if that engineer wants to become an architect in the future, not all of them feel they are "worthy" or care), that also helps as a great motivator. When I do that, I merely "stay in the loop" and more or less mentor them, but otherwise stay out of their way unless there is a good reason to take a course change. Only experience and exposure can teach a developer about good design (when you must support 100 million+ financial transactions and complex computations daily) and most developers who haven't been exposed to such reliability and high-volume requirements won't have a clue what truly works.
I had only worked with ~35k daily peak volume previous to becoming an architect in this company and everything I thought about what works and does not changed when I had to produce designs and implementations that can scale to ~400 million daily peak and ~100 million "typical" volume.
I only understand that now as an architect. At the companies where I was an engineer or even Sr. engineer, it wasn't the company's culture to allow developers/coders to participate in any meetings except the ones where they are handed a new task. That'll sap the life out of a good engineer very quickly.
Really, I because I thought it's the way you handle cars... ... oh wait, wrong thread, car analogy doesn't work here... my bad! Carry on!!
These are creative people, and will resist things like status reports and hard work schedules.
I'm a creative person and I can get fired for resisting status reports and missing deadlines. I don't see either as an obstacle to work, no matter what intensity of hatred I have for both. It is the frequency and detail level of status reports that become obstacles. It is also the ridiculousness of certain deadlines that become obstacles.
Thanks,
Leabre
We're too sue happy in this country. Years ago, if I had experienced any major customer service problems with a company I would complain or write a letter or whatever. Years go by where I read about how everyone is suing and my endless thoughts about what a tragedy it has become to be in this country and potentially be sued for anything and that I don't want to ever be like that.
A few weeks ago I had problems with a major OEM accidentally charging me 2.5x the invoice amount for some desktop workstations I purchased. When trying to resolve it through their customer service and the folks in India saying they cannot access my records (for 5 days straight at all hours of the day)... I eventually contacted a sales rep in the US that had instant access to my records and cancelled the order then created a new one. Instead of crediting the incorrect charge, it charged again, in addition to the new correct charge. Actually, it was only holding the funds and hasn't charged but totaled $20k in pending state holding my card so close to the limit that my monthly revolvers would have failed. My immediate reaction was to call an attorney rather than call them up and attempt to resolve it. In the end, their India support center still couldn't access my records but when I managed to contact the sales rep in US he had access to my records instantly again and the issue was resolved after the OEM called my creditor card issuer.
My point here is merely: it has become the American way, so-to-speak, to sue because it nearly has come to the point where either a) many are opportunists and see it more likely to win a civil lawsuit than the lottery, b) just have to make a statement and throw their superiority around, or more likely c) it has gotten to the point where the threat of a lawsuit or the act of a lawsuit is nearly the only way to get results these days because business and customers alike (or citezens/aliens) just don't want to take responsibility for their own actions anymore.
Regarding the merchant in question, for all I know he does have a filthy shop (I've seen many in my day, just watch Kitchen Nightmares) and if so, the correct response should be to clean it up before a health inspector arrives. Will he sue the health inspector for writing in a formal statement that the shop is filthy? But if it is clean and someone is making such accusations and customers decide to go elsewhere, perhaps a lawsuit is warranted if the perp refuses to make an apology.
Thanks,
Leabre
I wonder how they would think of the movies
* Pretty Baby
* Not all oranges are the only fruit
Those sho a bit of young girls in questionable scenes, yet they are rather artistic and make the story line artistic.
* Lolita?
No nudity, but quite suggestive. Again, the story lines are not meant to around but can be found arousing by some.
Why aren't they banning Amazon or Netflix from selling/renting those movies?
With cartoons, no actual child was involved and no child harmed.
What is with governments these days trying to protect us from ourselves and every conceivable possible evil when humanity has done just fine for thousands of years?
Granted, exploitation should be punishable. But not every act of child nudity is an exploitation. Just visit a naturalist beach. I don't see the government shutting them down just because children might be nude there? Family nudity? While I don't practice it I have many (foreign non-American) friends that do and I've been at their house many times.
While I have at times found their frank openness about nudity and even young kids so willingly fondling themselves to be a bit discomforting at first, for someone who was raised that you don't mention, think, or show your pee-pee/toodles ever because it is a sin, sex is a sin, touching your self is a sin, porn is a sin, flirting is a sin, crap, I later then found it refreshing that someone doesn't fee artificial inhibitions and openly expresses or allows it, without flaunting it or being perverted.
Here in America, we are still very much tied to our puritan heritage and I think we should just get over it. Sex happens. Nudity is natural (we're born that way), so why be so shameful about it?
Thanks,
Leabre
Have not worked for one of those you listed, but I am a Sr. software architect for one of the 3 credit reporting bureaus.
Thanks,
Leabre
I like your perspective. I never thought about it that way. Though, certain types of positions should require a degree: law, medical, structural engineering, pharmaceutical, rocket science, etc. But technical roles such as programming and administrating I do not think should require a degree. Vocational training may qualify also, as it is more specialized. But on-the-job trained or self-taught people will suffice if they can demonstrate their ability to perform.
Thanks,
Leabre
In the Navy, if you're just an enlisted sailor, that might be the case. You wouldn't believe the bureaucracy they have to survive on a daily basis. But if you are motivated enough to make it to a SEAL team, we had much less bureaucracy to contend with and much more "get it done". Of course, that was back in 1994-1996 era. I don't know how it is now.
Thanks,
Leabre
The majority of the worst programmers/developers I've worked with had degrees, the absolute worst had doctorates or masters degrees in computer science or math. Most of the best developers and architects I've worked with were self taught and had no college degree. In fact, there was one person that we interviewed a while back that I really liked. But three of the interviewers felt like you did, no degree, no job. We discussed many times whether we should hire him over some other people that had Masters degrees but lacked experience. In the end, we hired the person without the college degree and that individual was the best thing that ever happened to the company. He met every deadline, had motivation and imagination like no one else I've met, could solve nearly every problem creatively and very cleanly. Had an incredible ability to interpret what you really want in a spec as opposed to how you describe it. Looking at support tickets, most of what he put into production had very few problems except where a business requirement was misunderstood but otherwise, you could trust that if he implemented the functionality, it was ready to go production when he said it was. That individual understood more about technology trends, design patterns, algorithms and data structures than some of my own college professors. In short, he was one of the best hiring decisions we made for that company and one of the best programmers I ever met. The company later also hired the individual (who had two master in computer science and mathematics) that it wanted to over the same candidate. The company had to let him go about a year later for lack of ability to complete assigned tasks and those he completed often were not reliable.
If anything, while I really don't care whether people have a degree or not (for business type software development positions or most types of heavy-duty server application development); I will pick the one with more experience regardless, depending on whether they can demonstrate the requisite skills and personality. I usually end up interviewing people for positions where they must be technically sound (much higher than average technical abilities) and be able to work very well with people because they will need to jump through hoops (as you put it). Otherwise I have no real bias. If the candidate can demonstrate his/her ability to perform and survive in the work environment, then I'll hire the candidate.
Me, I don't have a degree either. After 12 years I have worked up to be a software architect for one of the credit bureaus. Interviewing for the position was very difficult. Our technical ability must be top-notch to succeed in this company as well as our people skills. I'm accustomed to start ups. This is actually the first large corporation I've worked for and I can say, jumping through hoops is an understatement. But I do fine.
I have been attending college part time. All my schedule could afford is one or two classes per semester and it has taken me 7 years to get finally get an associates degree. I stopped there. I work long enough hours at work than to leave and attend school for 3 hours two or three times per week plus homework. It was beginning to affect my marriage and my ability to keep my skills sharp at work. I don't learn on the job, I learn at home. So I stopped attended school.
You likely wouldn't hire me for that. A lot of others that only look for paper also wouldn't. But can pull my own weight and have outperformed many of my peers wherever I've worked. I also have produced or played very large role in launching many products into the market place that have succeeded very well. But I likely wouldn't be happy working for a place that is so superficial that if you don't have a degree, you don't get a job (for the type of work that I do).
Having a degree does not translate into knowing how to perform your job well. Of course, not having a degree does not mean you can't do can't job well, either. I suppose all things being equal between
I actually paid for classmates for the past 4 years. I'm annoyed that I pay and they still bombard me with advertisements when I visit and am logged in. But, I have been able to get in contact with former school mates and military friends than I could find through any other means. It worked for a while but not everyone uses classmates and it seems to be growing stale. They require payment if I would send a message to the recipient. But I don't feel ripped off nor do I care. I get out of their service what I wanted though their price is hefty for what it has to offer (including adverts when you're already paying).
Thanks,
Leabre
Per the article summary: The copyright for the content is held by 'Obama-Biden Transition Project, a 501c(4) organization'.
You can imagine my heart almost stopped when I thought I had confirmed my suspicions about the conspiracy when I read that part about "Osama Bin-Laden" but then after cleaning my glasses and reading again I realized it just Obama-Biden. Whew!! That was a close one...
Thanks,
Leabre
.NET Framework 1.x is completely different than 2.x, mainly because IL instructions and so on changed a bit with the introduction of Generics. They are relatively "sourcecode" compatible except where a few classes/methods/interfaces where marked obsolete by a replacement iteration/improvement that does require referencing a new assembly. But, for the most part, the new bits are completely optional and you can suppress the [Obsolete] compiler warning if you choose.
With the addition of .NET 3.0 (WPF, WF, WCF, and CardSpace), is really built on top of .NET 2.0 and basically introduces new capabilities. There are no new compiler features or language features otherwise. If you don't use any of the .NET 3.0 features, then you do not need to install .NET 3.0. .NET 3.5 is built in top of .NET 2.0. They did change the compiler to have more language features and they did make significant performance enhancements in the JIT, but otherwise, it is .NET 2.0. You can actually use all of the new C# 3.0 features and target .NET 2.0 except the extension methods and LINQ (which requires the use of Extension methods). You can create projects that target the .NET 3.5 framework and still reference only .NET 2.0 assemblies as long as you don't use anything that's new to .NET 3.5 (or .NET 3.0).
But it will be hard to do so because by definition, a .NET 3.5 application is something of Microsoft AJAX or WPF, WCF, WF, etc. Also, later .NET frameworks are cumulitive include everything previous, and are 99% backwards compatible. At least in the many multimillion line projects I've participated in, not one line of code has had to change for newer releases.
As to whether .NET is buggy or not. I've noticed just as many JSP and Flash and PHP websites that were buggy and prone to crashing, too. Considering that I've mostly worked on large enterprise projects that must sustain tens of millions of transactions/page requests per day (I'm currently an architect for one that must sustain 400 million), .NET is quite capable. It is just as easy to write crappy .NET code as it is crappy Java code and PHP. .NET make the problem more visible by rendering an internal exception into the HTML stream if the developer does not handle the exception (very bad practice). In all, I don't think .NET is any more buggy than any other language. The framework is solid if not quirky or lacking in some areas. It is the programmers, ultimately, that write good or bad code, or adhere to standards and good practice or none at all.
When you see buggy .NET applications, it is not because .NET sucks, it is because the programmer who wrote the application sucks.
Thanks,
Leabre
You will have to declare the $5000 as income and pay tax. Donating it back won't reduce your income by $5000, but by the percentage of your tax bracket. So if you end up in the 25% tax bracket, you can subtract 25% from the $5000 and still have to pay taxes on the remaining amount. It isn't all that different than donating $5000 to a religious organization. The entire $5k is not subtracted from your taxable liabilities, but is reduced by the percentage amount of your tax bracket. Using simpler math, donate $1,000 with 25% tax bracket, you'll have to still pay taxes on the remaining 75% (or $750). That is, unless it can magically (and legally) show up as a pre-tax deduction or tax credit (both of which reduce your tax liability by 100% of the amount credited -- such as 401k contribution). I'd love to see that happen.
Thanks,
Leabre
The problem is, we can "don't approve" all we want but they still keep getting re-elected so obviously enough people do approve or don't care.
Thanks,
Leabre