The real problem is the calls that are messages, where you don't have a chance to ask to be taken of the DNC list unless you call them to contact someone. The end result is that every single day for 18 months thus far, I get the same call from the same companies... but nothing I can do because I don't want to unwittingly call a number and get charged for the call.
I wrote a piece of software that watches the caller id (no call can get through unless callerid can recognize them) and if its "known" number, it'll just play the "beep beep beep, we're sorry, number you are trying to reach has been disconnected or is no longer in service, if you feel you've reached this number in error, please hang up and try the number again.". For everyone else, the call just goes through to my normal voicemail or I pick it up. You'ld be suprised how effective this is.
I'm the same way. I have two PC's at home and many Virtual PC's for various reasons. Apart from MS products, anything that I must have that requires any semblance of activation goes into a GuestOS. The problem is that if I apply a patch to VirtualPC or VMWare (beginning to lean towards VMWare these days) then most activations fail and need to be reactivated. That has prevented me from upgrading my VirtualPC 5.2 to MS Virtual PC 2004.
The bottom line is that until 2004 I would spend untold thousands of dollars in software. I'm a developer, and developer tools don't come cheap (on the Windows platforms) and various other software packages I liked to have. But more and more, they are required activation (tying it to a machine). My machines upgrade quickly. I upgrade and replace early, upgrade and replace often. In 2004, I started noticing how much of my software I can't reinstall. Not much had a problem, but the three things I cared about did and I haven't upgraded since.
Now, in late 2005, more and more requires activation. Some even require a subscription for updates. Not so bad, reasonable IMO. But... they don't provide a way to download patches seperate from their update feature and once the support year expires, if I don't renew, I can't go back and download even those updates I previously qualified for, in the case my system needs a rebuild.
Getting on my nerves. But I see a trend. The trend states that this is where it is all going. Now, I do my research. If a product I *want* requires activation, messes with my MBR, makes it difficult to install on my new PCs as I replace the old, or anything, I typically avoid it.
In some cases, I'll purchase a license and apply a crack. In my mind, I paid for it. So what do they care. In reality, its getting harder to do even that and to the point that I gave up on some software and just do without. Of course, I really don't look for open source alternatives. I just don't care. MS is the only company that gets away with activation in my case. But I avoid all others. I stopped upgrading Acrobat Pro because of this. I just don't agree with activation and the means they take to applying it.
There is one way I agree. www.libronix.com does it. You activate once, get a key that can be reapplied as much as you want. All their ebooks are purchased and activated against that key. If it leaks to the internet, you've just lost quit a bit of money as they deactivate you. Otherwise, they don't "presume" innocence or guilt. They just allow you to reapply they key if you must. I like that approach. It also shilds you from them going out of business. Too many software companies and ebooks that I've activated in 2002/2003 aren't in business and I have no way to reactivate... which is another prime reason I avoid any kind of central server authentication in general when using desktop/server software.
I run an AMD-64 3500+ 1GB RAM. I use VS.NET 2k5 in Connectix VirtualPC 5.2 (I haven't upgraded to MS VPC 2004 even though I have it through MSDN).
When using VS.NET 2003 in the host os, multiple web browsing sessions, Launch.com videos @>300k, VS.NET 2005 + SQL 2k5 in VPC w/512MB dedicated RAM, Word 2003 and Photoshop 7.01 open in the host... I still feel like the performance of VS.NET 2k5 in the VPC is far superior to the performance of 2003 in the host. I have no complaints. It is not slow, intellisense takes less time to kickin than it does in 2k3 in the host. I have no problems switching into the SQL Enterprise Studio in the VPC and doing some work. I have no problem with large VISIO diagrams in the host while all the other applications mentioned are open, as well.
Not to mention, I use AVG Network edition and Proxomitron are open as well with ZoneAlarm Pro. This install of Windows XP SP1 (all updates) has been running for about 1 year now with about 40GB of software installed (including Maya, 3D Max, Cinema 3D, C++Builder, VS6/VS.NET 2k3 and so much more it would bore you to mention.
All this said, I can't understand how performance of VS.NET B2 could be causing you pain. Not saying it isn't, but for me, its a dream, even in the VPC.
I'd hate to be in that building, or my children or wife to be on that bridge. While I sense your sarcasm and pessimism, thats one area where you don't want cheaters making through the educational program.
I work for a software company doing the financial/accounting system for insurance companies (ASP.NET based).
In any case, I greatly enjoy the work. It is the type of work that most people would shun because it isn't glorious enough or has a lot of "grunt" work involved. But in the end, you get out of it what you want. I've been given extreme leeway in my creative paths regarding my responsibilities and have solved many problems that Google fails to yield solutions to (yet it yeilds plenty of other people searching for the answers).
In the end you get out of it what you want. However, the original post sounds like there isn't much he could have got out of it.
I did once work for a fincancial institute in the past while it was slow, I also had great flexibility. The only down side is that I was more a Jr. Programmer at the time and had a hard time in some aspects of the software I was writing. Now, I'm well beyond Sr. and have learned, you make it it what you want it to be. If you're good, you can always relocate to someplace where you want more.
Where I'm at now, I've watched so many people come in and after a year or so, leave as leads, project manager, architects, and even one guy, a software director. But I'm still here because I'm still getting what I want out of it. I even left once, and they brough me back 2 months later.
In any case, what people consider interesting is different for each person, but in general, even "grunt" work can be greatly satisfying if you approach it with the right attitude and you are exceptionally creative with your approaches (by creative I mean constantly improving the design, implementation, architecture, performance) by never locking yourself into a box with past experience, but always finding new ways of improving yourself and your work.
I'll have to dissagree with your point #7. Some of the best programmers I've worked with, and as of late, it would appear, that now I'm one of those best that others have worked with...
I don't document the code. My coding style, is quite obvious what its doing. I don't comment the headers of each code file or method or parameter, as much of it is obvious, and I'm not just saying me, I'm saying even some of the best people I've worked with. I haven't worked with Martin Fowler or you or Stroustrup, so I'm not familiar with their style, only those I've worked with).
What I've notice these people do, and thus, myself as well, is to comment where comments are necessary... for example, to descibe a business process, or at least link to an externally documented business process, or a complicated workflow that won't necessarily make sense why things are the way they are.
Overall, a good developer/coder/programmer will comment, but I think a better programmer will know when to comment and where to put the comments.
Our application (web-based insurance application, I do the accounting back/middle tiers) isn't documented at all... mostly, except in some are highly complex workflows/processes, yet no one on the team (or even new employees) have any problem working with it or understanding what is happening (except the more Jr. mid. level people).
Anyway... just thought I'd chime in.
I used to comment as is recommended and hyped to be the sign of a good programmer. But I've learned, saving time and effort means to comment where it makes sense. Nonetheless, it could also be the types of software I've worked on. I have never worked on a flight control system or space shuttle launch control system or hospotial heart monitoring software.
Thats an interesting concept, the clemency thing. One I never thought about, but if I ever own a business that has such a thing as "late fee" or similar, I'll remember. Gone are the days where the customer is always right, instead the customer is always a source of cash for the next earning prediction/announcements. But to provide a true incentive to continue business, is unheard of. I think that was one of the most original business tactics I've heard of in quite some time.
I had this happen to me also. For a long time, they just collected the late fee when you rent the next movie. I never specifically agreed to their new terms, but somehow, in their agreement, they reserve the right to change the terms of their service with or without notice. In in effect, I didn't agree (or not agree) to the terms, but I wasn't aware of the new terms, either.
In the end, I rented a movie from a location that was a 3 hour drive away and turned it in at midnight (As per hollywoods terms, since I'm normally a Hollywood customer) but forgot that Blockbuster wants it before noon.
I got a collection notice for $11 or there abouts and had to actually pay the money back at the location in question and had to drive there.
That was 4 years ago and the last time I ever did business with Blockbuster.
One of the replies to your thread mentioned that we should respect their terms, but their terms do change without notice. Its hard to respect terms that change after many years of being a certain way. For those of us who have a perfect credit history and do whatever it takes to keep it that way, receiving a collection notice is a great way to lose lots of sleep and peace. To recover it, the only way I found, was not to do business with them again.
The problem is, Hollywood has the same clause, they can change their service terms whenever they want. Lets hope they don't do the same.
I recently turned down an offer to Google. Mainly because I'm not willing to relocate (still in school), already making $80k+ as a software developer with 8 years experience doing what I do, my wife making as much as a software development manager).
In the end, even though I did everything I can do now for the sole purpose of working for Microsoft, I'm dissappointed with their leadership the last few years and I'm not willing to work for a company that I so strongly dissagree with, even though I respect them greatly.
Google, on the other hand, actually isn't any place I'd want to work; most of their projects are the type of thing that I do. Except, for the fact that the last two years I spent working on my own language translation software, Google announced their own using the same technique I was working on. I would love to work on that team, but there are other things I want to do in life, and being my own boss is one of them.
My attention has changed to acquiring vast amounts of real estate investment lately.
Most photographers get paid by the print and reprint. Considering that my wedding is very personal to me, and I want to reserve the right to print additional photos 15 years from now (when I may not be able to contact the photographer for various reason, possibly including death of that photographer)...
I was able to locate a photographer that was very professional, pleasant to work with, works by referral only (no advertising), and, gives us the negatives and full rights to do whatever we want with them (wihtout an extra fee for doing so)... why? Because she believes the same thing I do, that it is my wedding, not hers. We used her services for two hours but paid her for 6, for two wedding (we aloped and then got married publicly a year later).
The problem, is that, only the photoplace that she does business with at the Beach (Laguna Beach, CA, USA) allows us to do reprints. Everyone else, demands proof, then we provide it, and doesn't believe it. So we give a phone number, business card and all, they call, verify, and still don't believe it. It is corrupt. I won't always live in California.
over the years I've been listening to some nut-case named Dvorak about Apple switching to Intel CPU's, but nobody would listen to me.
Now... I get to claim my new house, yacht, vacation to Hawaii, best friends first born manchild and various other things that people have bet over this issue.
So, MS decides to add features to their browser that aren't specified in standards or in a non-standard way and its a cardinal sin etc. etc.
But, Firefox decides to integrate SVG into the markup (free from a plugin box/tag) and its the greatest thing in the world.
If stardardization is truly important (as many make it seem in the case of MS) than why not wait until it gets specified in a standard and then implement that standard? Seems logical.
But, alas, that's not how the world works. How the real world works, is that vendors (MS, Firefox) add features/enhamcements/changes to the markup and capabilities, and eventually it becomes a standard (or not). That is called "innovation". If all we ever did was wait for a standard first, things wouldn't progress so quickly.
Anyway, I guess my point is that it is OK for Firefox to do this kind of thin, but not MS. When MS does it, they get accused of "embrace and extinquish".
I'm personally a Universal MSDN subscriber (not part of business). Currently, you have to use Activation keys for the MSDN software which grants you the right to install on 10 different installations. The VLM keys are not compatible with the MSDN distributions. I don't see how it would solve the problem to have us need to call them everytime I reinstall (which is very frequently for me and others I know).
Its good to haer a realist once in a while. I'm not going to honk-my-own-horn here so I won't, but I know that I have exceeded many of my peers in terms of development skill, maintainability, scalability, readability, and reliability concerning business applications and software architecture.
Mainly beacuse I *do* love what I do. I take home to work with me, not the other way around. I have really good insight into how and why things work and even better, how to debug (even code I don't agree with or like or I didn't write). I believe in doing it right the first time and having as much foresight as I reasonably can to make things easier to maintain when drastic changes come around the corner the next day/week/month/year. Of course, I fall short more often than I'd like but the integrity of my code or work is rarely comprimised as a result. My skills are constantly evolving and insights improving. Not formally trained but have a decent grasp on the fundamentals (pre-college grad) but have a doctorate in the-real-world.
Okay, to my point.
I've been hired in companies and made significant contributions to their product and thus, their success. I left one such company at the end of December 2004 and their interviewing practices were unbelievable. They ask canned questions that don't measure what you'll actually be doing there, they ask unreasonably complex questions that Anders Heljsberg (however you spell it) or Gosling wouldn't even know and expect you to answer everyone of them, and be a master of every technology (must know CSS better than Eric Meyers, must know JavaScript better than the Netscape Engineers, must know ASP.NET better than Scott Guthrie/Andy Smith, must know more about COM than Don Box/Adam Nathan, more about architecture than Fowler/GoF) etc. (in part due to my contributions there but in part because they want "the right person") but in all this, they don't measure weather you can work well in a team or meet deadlines or think logically and creatively.
My rant, I guess, was more about people who ask certain "trick" questions expecting an answer in order to "guage" their eligibility for employment, rather than testing their real-world skills, creative abilities, and their code's longevity (even when produced under more pressure than usual).
I used to interview people according to canned questions, "trick" questions, irrelevant questions concerning how it relates to the tasks they'll be performaing. But I very quickly learned that I'm cheating myself, my team, the applicant, and the company doing that. I found it more important to "get-to-know" them and discover their teamwork skills, though-process, and resourcefulness in addition to their skills.
Bottom line: I don't want to work for you and really good programmers probly don't either, if they prefer the real-world and not some zealots evnironment he's created to make himself feel important to the rest of the team (regardless of whether you are or not important).
I'm done because I can't communicate my thoughts in fewer words, which is why I should take those writing classes, debate, and critical thinking.
How long until they strap us to electric chairs and pry our eyes open and zap us if we blink during a commercial? Or levy taxes if we use the restroom during a commercial to recover "lost revenues"?
This is rediculous. Nonetheless, I've done my part, I don't watch public telivision, I don't subscribe to any entertainment at all. At the most, I'll choose what movie to watch when it is in the theatre, whether I'll rent it, and that's about it.
My first thought was "why the hell would a LAW FIRM file patent relating to digital image processing"? My second thought was "why would they wait over 16 YEARS to defend their patent"?
Obviously we're talking about an inventor that really wants his idea to succeed and not be stolen by people who actually produce something, rather than sit on the luerals....Have we all lost sight of why patents were established in the first place?
No, this is why they were established, so we can sue the unfortunate chap that was second inline to file for a patent application on the idea, er, invention I mean.
I don't recall the intention was to STIFLE innovation and provide an avenue to generate a sudden, large revenue stream for the patent holder.
Of course it is, don't you know, the incentive to patent something is so you can wait until the market is dependant on something that you patented and then sue them when there's no turning back. Its called long-term investment. Why try to bring it to market NOW when everyone else will in 16 years and then you can sue them for "damages"...?
Was not the original intent of the patent system to provide incentive for inventors to develop and produce their invention? Wasn't the idea to provide a temporary period of protection to the inventor to establish himself in the market for his invention without getting ripped off by an unscrupulous competitor?
Not really, because that would be too benificial to society and anit-capitalist.
I think that if I am right then the patent system should be overhauled and be more restrictive
Good thing it isn't up to you.
especially since it was built around the invention of physical devices. Not just in what is patented, but how patents are granted.
Our days have changed, we live in an intellectual society. That way we can lay off all or local workers and re-hire many more in some other country who can do the same work for cheaper and good quality. Good thing we don't have to actually produce something anymore, instead, we just need to "think" of it and voila... instant riches.
If there already isn't such a provision in place, the patent applicant should be required to demonstrate his intent to USE the information in his patent
Again, how would such a provision benefits all of our bought-and-paid-for congress-criters? Or the corporations?
The patent then could be provisionally granted for a short term (5 years maybe?) and at the end of this term, if there is no progress then the patent is expired and cannot be renewed (though an inventor could start the filing process from scratch).
This isn't in the best interest of a modern, capitalistic society. This would be a step backwards towards "progress" or more closely akin to Americas "developing" years. Why would we want that?
I was in the US Navy from 1994-1996 and the damage control teams already have a special camera (forget what it is called) that can see through dense smoke (the type you would expect from a jet fuel fire or amunition fire on a ship) and help you to see clearly through the smoke.
Wonder what makes the camera in this article so different from the technology the Navy already uses... I'm sure the current navy breed is much more advanced than it was 10 years ago.
Because he is shipping ebooks with it that "assume" the reader knows nothing about harware design, and if you go through the book from start to finish, you'll be able to make the unit yourself. Of course, you'll learn how to make that system, and maybe it'll teach you how to make your own system, as well.
It's funny you say this. I've been programming since the days of Apple// and Commodore. I love technology it spend about 30% of my income on technology and learning further in technology. I'm a senior programmer and have an insane ability for debugging, understanding every ounce of technology surrounding an implementation or proposed solution, and can do in 8 hours what takes 5 other people on the team 2-10 days, depending on the person/team/motivation levels.
I love what I do, but I've recently started going to school. While I'm studying CS, I have recent serious taken a second look at whether I want a degree in CS, I have no idea whether I'll still be employed in 5 years. Yes, I'm very talented, I do this because I love it, and that is exactly what scares me, companies don't always care. Current trends and all, I can only continue to exert myself as hard as I can in the hopes that I'll remain competitive and meaningful and some employer will honor that.
As such, my degree is changing to business and political science. I care so much about my career, I feel if I can get involved in Pol. Sci. I can possible make some sort of change. I want to get into business because I feel it'll help me understand "business" and make me more valuable as a programmer. I'm not a spec. driven developer, I actually do think and do improvise and I'm really good at R&D and I would do even better if I understood why things are the way they are (in a profit driven world) -- I implement mostly accounting systems, BTW.
BTW: I actually do enjoy writing business applications and database-type applications extensively. It is difficult to communicate my sentiments, but there is an intense amount of "innovation" that one can do in this area even though many don't like it and view it as a code-monkey type of thing, I couldn't dissagree more. But I'll admit, the more Jr. and mid-level people are "stuck in a rut" but if you are good enough and Sr. Enough and experienced enough, you can command your path just about anywhere (I've learned) (as long as you are given the chance to command your path). Mostly, I write frameworks (and prevent people from reinventing the wheel, although I do it myself at times -- our company has zero dependance on any 3rd party except MS technologies) and I architect but not an architect, I design the system and implement the more advanced parts that others would have difficulty with. We sell our software and are very profitable (ASP.NET driven application) and have a team of about 50 developers).
My point being, I love doing programming, but I love studying History, Political Science, and Business. It is such an interesting world when you leave your technology bubble. There is so much one person can do to change it and I aim to find my place to help keep a balance (rather than bitching about it, that got old).
Most likely because they way they are described in a way that the "discussions" and people who practice the art could understand, are drastically different then they way they are described in the patent... it would be very difficult to find a match based on the descriptions and verbage.
And if the union decides to strike, the company can just hire a new crop of developers in India where the threat of unionization doesn't exist... um, no thanks, I'll just read the contract and decide whether I'll accept it or not...
I've worked for 3 companies that exclusively uses stored procedures and haven't seen any problems. In fact, the two places I worked that didn't use them and instead used embedded SQL were the ones that were difficult to maintain, especially in the places where the same embedded SQL scripts where in multiple places in the application. One other place I worked for used a special Data Access Layer that had a "Select" method and a "Update", "Insert", and "Delete" method that took parameters and then just dynamically generated the SQL script to execute. It worked well and was low maintenance source code, but a very fragile DAL that was hardly touched for fear of breaking it.
In all, properly used, SP's aren't bad and are very useful. Especially for security and data integrity. I know some prefer to use SQL for multiple database platforms without having to rewrite the SP's on each platform, but in reality, I've never seen a place (not saying they don't exists) that wrote such generic SQL that it would without database-specific changes, anyway.
I mean it is so easy just to grap the XP source code and to fix it yourself.
Yes, because you have heard of certain bugs/exploits in Linux and gone to the source to fix them yourself... huh?
I'm willing to bet, that despite all the claims that open source means 10,000 people are fixing the source code, that indeed, most of those 10,000 geeks are really "waiting" for fixes to be released by the few who actually do fix the code.
Having the source to open source software is no different than not having the source to proprietary software if you're truly not going to go fix all those security vulnerabilities and defects in it in the first place, and yet, somehow, it is still the most pervasive argument about why OSS is superior...
oh well, not like I care. I don't earn my living volunteering my intellectual knowledge to the rest of the world for free, I earn my living by writing proprietary software (my wife and I both, in the US, more than 6 figures doing so)...
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is the calls that are messages, where you don't have a chance to ask to be taken of the DNC list unless you call them to contact someone. The end result is that every single day for 18 months thus far, I get the same call from the same companies... but nothing I can do because I don't want to unwittingly call a number and get charged for the call.
I wrote a piece of software that watches the caller id (no call can get through unless callerid can recognize them) and if its "known" number, it'll just play the "beep beep beep, we're sorry, number you are trying to reach has been disconnected or is no longer in service, if you feel you've reached this number in error, please hang up and try the number again.". For everyone else, the call just goes through to my normal voicemail or I pick it up. You'ld be suprised how effective this is.
Thanks,
Leabre
I'm the same way. I have two PC's at home and many Virtual PC's for various reasons. Apart from MS products, anything that I must have that requires any semblance of activation goes into a GuestOS. The problem is that if I apply a patch to VirtualPC or VMWare (beginning to lean towards VMWare these days) then most activations fail and need to be reactivated. That has prevented me from upgrading my VirtualPC 5.2 to MS Virtual PC 2004.
The bottom line is that until 2004 I would spend untold thousands of dollars in software. I'm a developer, and developer tools don't come cheap (on the Windows platforms) and various other software packages I liked to have. But more and more, they are required activation (tying it to a machine). My machines upgrade quickly. I upgrade and replace early, upgrade and replace often. In 2004, I started noticing how much of my software I can't reinstall. Not much had a problem, but the three things I cared about did and I haven't upgraded since.
Now, in late 2005, more and more requires activation. Some even require a subscription for updates. Not so bad, reasonable IMO. But... they don't provide a way to download patches seperate from their update feature and once the support year expires, if I don't renew, I can't go back and download even those updates I previously qualified for, in the case my system needs a rebuild.
Getting on my nerves. But I see a trend. The trend states that this is where it is all going. Now, I do my research. If a product I *want* requires activation, messes with my MBR, makes it difficult to install on my new PCs as I replace the old, or anything, I typically avoid it.
In some cases, I'll purchase a license and apply a crack. In my mind, I paid for it. So what do they care. In reality, its getting harder to do even that and to the point that I gave up on some software and just do without. Of course, I really don't look for open source alternatives. I just don't care. MS is the only company that gets away with activation in my case. But I avoid all others. I stopped upgrading Acrobat Pro because of this. I just don't agree with activation and the means they take to applying it.
There is one way I agree. www.libronix.com does it. You activate once, get a key that can be reapplied as much as you want. All their ebooks are purchased and activated against that key. If it leaks to the internet, you've just lost quit a bit of money as they deactivate you. Otherwise, they don't "presume" innocence or guilt. They just allow you to reapply they key if you must. I like that approach. It also shilds you from them going out of business. Too many software companies and ebooks that I've activated in 2002/2003 aren't in business and I have no way to reactivate... which is another prime reason I avoid any kind of central server authentication in general when using desktop/server software.
Thanks,
Leabre
I run an AMD-64 3500+ 1GB RAM. I use VS.NET 2k5 in Connectix VirtualPC 5.2 (I haven't upgraded to MS VPC 2004 even though I have it through MSDN).
When using VS.NET 2003 in the host os, multiple web browsing sessions, Launch.com videos @>300k, VS.NET 2005 + SQL 2k5 in VPC w/512MB dedicated RAM, Word 2003 and Photoshop 7.01 open in the host... I still feel like the performance of VS.NET 2k5 in the VPC is far superior to the performance of 2003 in the host. I have no complaints. It is not slow, intellisense takes less time to kickin than it does in 2k3 in the host. I have no problems switching into the SQL Enterprise Studio in the VPC and doing some work. I have no problem with large VISIO diagrams in the host while all the other applications mentioned are open, as well.
Not to mention, I use AVG Network edition and Proxomitron are open as well with ZoneAlarm Pro. This install of Windows XP SP1 (all updates) has been running for about 1 year now with about 40GB of software installed (including Maya, 3D Max, Cinema 3D, C++Builder, VS6/VS.NET 2k3 and so much more it would bore you to mention.
All this said, I can't understand how performance of VS.NET B2 could be causing you pain. Not saying it isn't, but for me, its a dream, even in the VPC.
Maybe you should upgrade your PC.
Thanks,
Leabre
I'd hate to be in that building, or my children or wife to be on that bridge. While I sense your sarcasm and pessimism, thats one area where you don't want cheaters making through the educational program.
Thanks,
Leabre
I work for a software company doing the financial/accounting system for insurance companies (ASP.NET based).
In any case, I greatly enjoy the work. It is the type of work that most people would shun because it isn't glorious enough or has a lot of "grunt" work involved. But in the end, you get out of it what you want. I've been given extreme leeway in my creative paths regarding my responsibilities and have solved many problems that Google fails to yield solutions to (yet it yeilds plenty of other people searching for the answers).
In the end you get out of it what you want. However, the original post sounds like there isn't much he could have got out of it.
I did once work for a fincancial institute in the past while it was slow, I also had great flexibility. The only down side is that I was more a Jr. Programmer at the time and had a hard time in some aspects of the software I was writing. Now, I'm well beyond Sr. and have learned, you make it it what you want it to be. If you're good, you can always relocate to someplace where you want more.
Where I'm at now, I've watched so many people come in and after a year or so, leave as leads, project manager, architects, and even one guy, a software director. But I'm still here because I'm still getting what I want out of it. I even left once, and they brough me back 2 months later.
In any case, what people consider interesting is different for each person, but in general, even "grunt" work can be greatly satisfying if you approach it with the right attitude and you are exceptionally creative with your approaches (by creative I mean constantly improving the design, implementation, architecture, performance) by never locking yourself into a box with past experience, but always finding new ways of improving yourself and your work.
Thanks,
Leabre
I'll have to dissagree with your point #7. Some of the best programmers I've worked with, and as of late, it would appear, that now I'm one of those best that others have worked with...
I don't document the code. My coding style, is quite obvious what its doing. I don't comment the headers of each code file or method or parameter, as much of it is obvious, and I'm not just saying me, I'm saying even some of the best people I've worked with. I haven't worked with Martin Fowler or you or Stroustrup, so I'm not familiar with their style, only those I've worked with).
What I've notice these people do, and thus, myself as well, is to comment where comments are necessary... for example, to descibe a business process, or at least link to an externally documented business process, or a complicated workflow that won't necessarily make sense why things are the way they are.
Overall, a good developer/coder/programmer will comment, but I think a better programmer will know when to comment and where to put the comments.
Our application (web-based insurance application, I do the accounting back/middle tiers) isn't documented at all... mostly, except in some are highly complex workflows/processes, yet no one on the team (or even new employees) have any problem working with it or understanding what is happening (except the more Jr. mid. level people).
Anyway... just thought I'd chime in.
I used to comment as is recommended and hyped to be the sign of a good programmer. But I've learned, saving time and effort means to comment where it makes sense. Nonetheless, it could also be the types of software I've worked on. I have never worked on a flight control system or space shuttle launch control system or hospotial heart monitoring software.
Thanks,
Leabre
Perhaps AMD should just license the intel compiler and write their own optimizer for it. Or, write their own compiler.
Thanks,
Leabre
Thats an interesting concept, the clemency thing. One I never thought about, but if I ever own a business that has such a thing as "late fee" or similar, I'll remember. Gone are the days where the customer is always right, instead the customer is always a source of cash for the next earning prediction/announcements. But to provide a true incentive to continue business, is unheard of. I think that was one of the most original business tactics I've heard of in quite some time.
Thanks,
Leabre
I had this happen to me also. For a long time, they just collected the late fee when you rent the next movie. I never specifically agreed to their new terms, but somehow, in their agreement, they reserve the right to change the terms of their service with or without notice. In in effect, I didn't agree (or not agree) to the terms, but I wasn't aware of the new terms, either.
In the end, I rented a movie from a location that was a 3 hour drive away and turned it in at midnight (As per hollywoods terms, since I'm normally a Hollywood customer) but forgot that Blockbuster wants it before noon.
I got a collection notice for $11 or there abouts and had to actually pay the money back at the location in question and had to drive there.
That was 4 years ago and the last time I ever did business with Blockbuster.
One of the replies to your thread mentioned that we should respect their terms, but their terms do change without notice. Its hard to respect terms that change after many years of being a certain way. For those of us who have a perfect credit history and do whatever it takes to keep it that way, receiving a collection notice is a great way to lose lots of sleep and peace. To recover it, the only way I found, was not to do business with them again.
The problem is, Hollywood has the same clause, they can change their service terms whenever they want. Lets hope they don't do the same.
Thanks,
Leabre
I recently turned down an offer to Google. Mainly because I'm not willing to relocate (still in school), already making $80k+ as a software developer with 8 years experience doing what I do, my wife making as much as a software development manager).
In the end, even though I did everything I can do now for the sole purpose of working for Microsoft, I'm dissappointed with their leadership the last few years and I'm not willing to work for a company that I so strongly dissagree with, even though I respect them greatly.
Google, on the other hand, actually isn't any place I'd want to work; most of their projects are the type of thing that I do. Except, for the fact that the last two years I spent working on my own language translation software, Google announced their own using the same technique I was working on. I would love to work on that team, but there are other things I want to do in life, and being my own boss is one of them.
My attention has changed to acquiring vast amounts of real estate investment lately.
Thanks,
Leabre
Most photographers get paid by the print and reprint. Considering that my wedding is very personal to me, and I want to reserve the right to print additional photos 15 years from now (when I may not be able to contact the photographer for various reason, possibly including death of that photographer)...
I was able to locate a photographer that was very professional, pleasant to work with, works by referral only (no advertising), and, gives us the negatives and full rights to do whatever we want with them (wihtout an extra fee for doing so)... why? Because she believes the same thing I do, that it is my wedding, not hers. We used her services for two hours but paid her for 6, for two wedding (we aloped and then got married publicly a year later).
The problem, is that, only the photoplace that she does business with at the Beach (Laguna Beach, CA, USA) allows us to do reprints. Everyone else, demands proof, then we provide it, and doesn't believe it. So we give a phone number, business card and all, they call, verify, and still don't believe it. It is corrupt. I won't always live in California.
Oh well.
Thanks,
Leabre
over the years I've been listening to some nut-case named Dvorak about Apple switching to Intel CPU's, but nobody would listen to me.
Now... I get to claim my new house, yacht, vacation to Hawaii, best friends first born manchild and various other things that people have bet over this issue.
What a great day this has become.
- Leabre
So, MS decides to add features to their browser that aren't specified in standards or in a non-standard way and its a cardinal sin etc. etc.
But, Firefox decides to integrate SVG into the markup (free from a plugin box/tag) and its the greatest thing in the world.
If stardardization is truly important (as many make it seem in the case of MS) than why not wait until it gets specified in a standard and then implement that standard? Seems logical.
But, alas, that's not how the world works. How the real world works, is that vendors (MS, Firefox) add features/enhamcements/changes to the markup and capabilities, and eventually it becomes a standard (or not). That is called "innovation". If all we ever did was wait for a standard first, things wouldn't progress so quickly.
Anyway, I guess my point is that it is OK for Firefox to do this kind of thin, but not MS. When MS does it, they get accused of "embrace and extinquish".
I'm personally a Universal MSDN subscriber (not part of business). Currently, you have to use Activation keys for the MSDN software which grants you the right to install on 10 different installations. The VLM keys are not compatible with the MSDN distributions. I don't see how it would solve the problem to have us need to call them everytime I reinstall (which is very frequently for me and others I know).
Its good to haer a realist once in a while. I'm not going to honk-my-own-horn here so I won't, but I know that I have exceeded many of my peers in terms of development skill, maintainability, scalability, readability, and reliability concerning business applications and software architecture.
Mainly beacuse I *do* love what I do. I take home to work with me, not the other way around. I have really good insight into how and why things work and even better, how to debug (even code I don't agree with or like or I didn't write). I believe in doing it right the first time and having as much foresight as I reasonably can to make things easier to maintain when drastic changes come around the corner the next day/week/month/year. Of course, I fall short more often than I'd like but the integrity of my code or work is rarely comprimised as a result. My skills are constantly evolving and insights improving. Not formally trained but have a decent grasp on the fundamentals (pre-college grad) but have a doctorate in the-real-world.
Okay, to my point.
I've been hired in companies and made significant contributions to their product and thus, their success. I left one such company at the end of December 2004 and their interviewing practices were unbelievable. They ask canned questions that don't measure what you'll actually be doing there, they ask unreasonably complex questions that Anders Heljsberg (however you spell it) or Gosling wouldn't even know and expect you to answer everyone of them, and be a master of every technology (must know CSS better than Eric Meyers, must know JavaScript better than the Netscape Engineers, must know ASP.NET better than Scott Guthrie/Andy Smith, must know more about COM than Don Box/Adam Nathan, more about architecture than Fowler/GoF) etc. (in part due to my contributions there but in part because they want "the right person") but in all this, they don't measure weather you can work well in a team or meet deadlines or think logically and creatively.
My rant, I guess, was more about people who ask certain "trick" questions expecting an answer in order to "guage" their eligibility for employment, rather than testing their real-world skills, creative abilities, and their code's longevity (even when produced under more pressure than usual).
I used to interview people according to canned questions, "trick" questions, irrelevant questions concerning how it relates to the tasks they'll be performaing. But I very quickly learned that I'm cheating myself, my team, the applicant, and the company doing that. I found it more important to "get-to-know" them and discover their teamwork skills, though-process, and resourcefulness in addition to their skills.
Bottom line: I don't want to work for you and really good programmers probly don't either, if they prefer the real-world and not some zealots evnironment he's created to make himself feel important to the rest of the team (regardless of whether you are or not important).
I'm done because I can't communicate my thoughts in fewer words, which is why I should take those writing classes, debate, and critical thinking.
Thanks,
Leabre
How long until they strap us to electric chairs and pry our eyes open and zap us if we blink during a commercial? Or levy taxes if we use the restroom during a commercial to recover "lost revenues"?
This is rediculous. Nonetheless, I've done my part, I don't watch public telivision, I don't subscribe to any entertainment at all. At the most, I'll choose what movie to watch when it is in the theatre, whether I'll rent it, and that's about it.
Thanks,
Leabre
My first thought was "why the hell would a LAW FIRM file patent relating to digital image processing"? My second thought was "why would they wait over 16 YEARS to defend their patent"?
...Have we all lost sight of why patents were established in the first place?
Obviously we're talking about an inventor that really wants his idea to succeed and not be stolen by people who actually produce something, rather than sit on the luerals.
No, this is why they were established, so we can sue the unfortunate chap that was second inline to file for a patent application on the idea, er, invention I mean.
I don't recall the intention was to STIFLE innovation and provide an avenue to generate a sudden, large revenue stream for the patent holder.
Of course it is, don't you know, the incentive to patent something is so you can wait until the market is dependant on something that you patented and then sue them when there's no turning back. Its called long-term investment. Why try to bring it to market NOW when everyone else will in 16 years and then you can sue them for "damages"...?
Was not the original intent of the patent system to provide incentive for inventors to develop and produce their invention? Wasn't the idea to provide a temporary period of protection to the inventor to establish himself in the market for his invention without getting ripped off by an unscrupulous competitor?
Not really, because that would be too benificial to society and anit-capitalist.
I think that if I am right then the patent system should be overhauled and be more restrictive
Good thing it isn't up to you.
especially since it was built around the invention of physical devices. Not just in what is patented, but how patents are granted.
Our days have changed, we live in an intellectual society. That way we can lay off all or local workers and re-hire many more in some other country who can do the same work for cheaper and good quality. Good thing we don't have to actually produce something anymore, instead, we just need to "think" of it and voila... instant riches.
If there already isn't such a provision in place, the patent applicant should be required to demonstrate his intent to USE the information in his patent
Again, how would such a provision benefits all of our bought-and-paid-for congress-criters? Or the corporations?
The patent then could be provisionally granted for a short term (5 years maybe?) and at the end of this term, if there is no progress then the patent is expired and cannot be renewed (though an inventor could start the filing process from scratch).
This isn't in the best interest of a modern, capitalistic society. This would be a step backwards towards "progress" or more closely akin to Americas "developing" years. Why would we want that?
I'm done now..
I was in the US Navy from 1994-1996 and the damage control teams already have a special camera (forget what it is called) that can see through dense smoke (the type you would expect from a jet fuel fire or amunition fire on a ship) and help you to see clearly through the smoke.
Wonder what makes the camera in this article so different from the technology the Navy already uses... I'm sure the current navy breed is much more advanced than it was 10 years ago.
Thanks,
Leabre
Because he is shipping ebooks with it that "assume" the reader knows nothing about harware design, and if you go through the book from start to finish, you'll be able to make the unit yourself. Of course, you'll learn how to make that system, and maybe it'll teach you how to make your own system, as well.
Thanks,
Leabre
In the near future the ARM version will be released. They wanted to have a "simple" system to start and work their way up to a more complex system.
Thanks,
Leabre
It's funny you say this. I've been programming since the days of Apple // and Commodore. I love technology it spend about 30% of my income on technology and learning further in technology. I'm a senior programmer and have an insane ability for debugging, understanding every ounce of technology surrounding an implementation or proposed solution, and can do in 8 hours what takes 5 other people on the team 2-10 days, depending on the person/team/motivation levels.
I love what I do, but I've recently started going to school. While I'm studying CS, I have recent serious taken a second look at whether I want a degree in CS, I have no idea whether I'll still be employed in 5 years. Yes, I'm very talented, I do this because I love it, and that is exactly what scares me, companies don't always care. Current trends and all, I can only continue to exert myself as hard as I can in the hopes that I'll remain competitive and meaningful and some employer will honor that.
As such, my degree is changing to business and political science. I care so much about my career, I feel if I can get involved in Pol. Sci. I can possible make some sort of change. I want to get into business because I feel it'll help me understand "business" and make me more valuable as a programmer. I'm not a spec. driven developer, I actually do think and do improvise and I'm really good at R&D and I would do even better if I understood why things are the way they are (in a profit driven world) -- I implement mostly accounting systems, BTW.
BTW: I actually do enjoy writing business applications and database-type applications extensively. It is difficult to communicate my sentiments, but there is an intense amount of "innovation" that one can do in this area even though many don't like it and view it as a code-monkey type of thing, I couldn't dissagree more. But I'll admit, the more Jr. and mid-level people are "stuck in a rut" but if you are good enough and Sr. Enough and experienced enough, you can command your path just about anywhere (I've learned) (as long as you are given the chance to command your path). Mostly, I write frameworks (and prevent people from reinventing the wheel, although I do it myself at times -- our company has zero dependance on any 3rd party except MS technologies) and I architect but not an architect, I design the system and implement the more advanced parts that others would have difficulty with. We sell our software and are very profitable (ASP.NET driven application) and have a team of about 50 developers).
My point being, I love doing programming, but I love studying History, Political Science, and Business. It is such an interesting world when you leave your technology bubble. There is so much one person can do to change it and I aim to find my place to help keep a balance (rather than bitching about it, that got old).
Thanks,
Leabre
Most likely because they way they are described in a way that the "discussions" and people who practice the art could understand, are drastically different then they way they are described in the patent... it would be very difficult to find a match based on the descriptions and verbage.
Thanks,
Leabre
And if the union decides to strike, the company can just hire a new crop of developers in India where the threat of unionization doesn't exist... um, no thanks, I'll just read the contract and decide whether I'll accept it or not...
Thanks,
Leabre
I've worked for 3 companies that exclusively uses stored procedures and haven't seen any problems. In fact, the two places I worked that didn't use them and instead used embedded SQL were the ones that were difficult to maintain, especially in the places where the same embedded SQL scripts where in multiple places in the application. One other place I worked for used a special Data Access Layer that had a "Select" method and a "Update", "Insert", and "Delete" method that took parameters and then just dynamically generated the SQL script to execute. It worked well and was low maintenance source code, but a very fragile DAL that was hardly touched for fear of breaking it.
In all, properly used, SP's aren't bad and are very useful. Especially for security and data integrity. I know some prefer to use SQL for multiple database platforms without having to rewrite the SP's on each platform, but in reality, I've never seen a place (not saying they don't exists) that wrote such generic SQL that it would without database-specific changes, anyway.
Thanks,
Leabre
I mean it is so easy just to grap the XP source code and to fix it yourself.
Yes, because you have heard of certain bugs/exploits in Linux and gone to the source to fix them yourself... huh?
I'm willing to bet, that despite all the claims that open source means 10,000 people are fixing the source code, that indeed, most of those 10,000 geeks are really "waiting" for fixes to be released by the few who actually do fix the code.
Having the source to open source software is no different than not having the source to proprietary software if you're truly not going to go fix all those security vulnerabilities and defects in it in the first place, and yet, somehow, it is still the most pervasive argument about why OSS is superior...
oh well, not like I care. I don't earn my living volunteering my intellectual knowledge to the rest of the world for free, I earn my living by writing proprietary software (my wife and I both, in the US, more than 6 figures doing so)...
Thanks,
Me