I still don't see the difference. The success of both for-profit and charities can be measured in the same way:
Dollars spent * Efficiency Coefficient = Dollars of revenue or Dollars spent * Efficiency Coefficient = Lives saved/improved/etc.
Obviously you can spend too much time looking at metrics when running a charity, which would cause your efficiency to drop. But you can also spend too much time looking at metrics when running a for-profit, which would cause your efficiency to drop. The proper use of metrics is the exact same in both organizations: only spend time with metrics when it improves your bottom line (profit, lives saved, etc).
You talked about how it is difficult to measure success in charities, but it is also very difficult when running a company. Customer satisfaction is a common secondary interest in business, and it is very hard to quantify how that translates into increased profit. Or how about determining how much money an advertising campaign made you. Companies even have scenarios where their efforts are successful even if they lose profit, because they could have lost even more profit. That is no different than measuring success in terms of the number of people who didn't die (measuring by the number of customers you didn't lose).
Your post just sounds like someone who works in the industry, and has a problem when people try to effectively gauge if you are doing your job properly. Just like how teachers don't like to be measured, or programmers for that matter. Some fields are harder to create metrics for than others, but the core principles behind measuring success and failure based on the goals given to you are the same. Regardless of whether those goals are provided by stockholders or philanthropists.
2. Offer a refund to Linux users and apologize for wasting their time (remember, "no one plays games on Linux", so this shouldn't shouldn't cost them anything).
Offering a refund removes one of the few penalties for people who cheat the system for as long as they can before they get caught. In Blizzard's cat and mouse game of catching EULA infringers, the only way Blizzard can win is if they catch them before they make $60 from their exploits.
Blizzard could spend the extra time to investigate every single banning to see how bad it was (botting is obviously worse than playing on Linux), but why? They already have their Terms of Use and Policies which plainly say that you are not supposed to run the game in any manner that Blizzard did not intend. And I don't remember seeing any hint of Linux support on the box.
This is hardly news. Blizzard has probably tens of thousands of people out there trying to break their games and their economies. If Blizzard doesn't feel it is worth extending Warden (their anti-cheating tool) to work on Linux (because of the marginally increased sales that come from supporting Linux), then they don't have to.
If they allowed Diablo 3 to be played on Linux, but weren't able to properly monitor users who play on Linux, their WOW and Diablo 3 economies would be sunk.
Ah the might is right argument eh? I suppose all violent thieves take that view.
I am sure they do (until they realize the police have far more might). Just like judges take that view when they order child support payments, or police when they detain a car thief, or any other number of instances where people are forced to do something under threat. The only times people complain about "might makes right" is when they consider themselves weak.
To be honest, I originally posted hourly rates for both, then realized that salaries made more sense for both. I changed one, and forgot to change the other. Oops.
I know the difference between computer science and programming, and I mean no disrespect, but I do not know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. If you are inclined to do so, please enlighten me.
I used the analogy of mech. engineer vs CAD operator because I think it is basically the same as the distinction between software engineer and programmer. The software field is far less mature than any engineering fields, so the difference is far less clear. A coworker of mine once said, "If you can't easily tell the difference between a software engineer and programmer, you are a programmer [or not in the field]."
In my opinion, in 20 years you probably will have very distinct job titles, with very different pay rates. $30-40k/yr to just hammer out code (like today's CADists), but $40-80/hr to engineer software. This will be caused by improved tools, and more standardized industry standards.
I have more of a problem with the job title "Software Architect". They are simply very skilled software engineers. I have never heard of a very skilled chemical engineer being called a chemical architect.
I have to agree with parent... software engineering sounds suspiciously like the product of marketing, as there is nothing material to the result or the work. It's just a more ominous sounding term than "programmer," but only serves to dilute the meaning of the word "engineer," the way "sales engineer," "desktop engineer," or "Slashdot comment engineer" does. Programmers rule, are generally very bright and everyone knows it, and I don't know from where the need for this additional magnificence comes.
Why do you think adding the word "engineer" adds additional magnificence? Its origins lie in simply operating machines of war, so jobs such as locomotive engineer are much closer to the original meaning than mechanical engineering is.
But the more modern meaning can be broadly defined as someone who designs complex systems. I have no problem even with classifications such as custodial engineering, as long as you are doing innovative work towards the goal of improving the janitorial profession (and not just scrubbing toilets).
Arguing that most people who call themselves software engineers are actually programmers is a worthwhile discussion, but arguing that the field of software engineering does not exist is no different than saying computer scientists are no different than standard programmers.
In the sense that an engineer is actually someone that designs, builds or maintains engines, machines, or public works, i.e. works with physical things, software engineering is, I believe, a dubious term
So you are taking a term that originated before the advent of the digital world, and arbitrarily restricting it to apply only to "physical things"? If such a wide range of fields such as chemical, civil, and mechanical engineering can bear the same term, I see no reason why software is any different. The word engineering has evolved so much over the past few hundred years that even a drastic change would not be unprecedented. An engineer started out simply as an operator of machines, but more recently replaced the phrase "mechanic arts" in last hundred years or so to obtain its more common modern meaning (some colleges still have "Engineering and Mechanic Arts" departments). Perhaps you also disagree with calling simple mechanics engineers? (aka mechanical engineers)
I believe that it is very important to distinguish between computer scientists, software engineers, and programmers. Just like it is important to distinguish between physicists, mechanical engineers, and CAD operators. Whether we use the word engineer or not is fairly arbitrary, but I think it fits quite well. Software engineering is a young field, and best practices are far less mature than other fields, but that will improve over time.
I remember reading speculation from dawn of the 20th century, that claimed the expanding global economy made wars between major powers unlikely (sorry, no citation). It was wrong then, and it is probably wrong now. Nucular bombs have done far more to promote world peace than economic inter-dependence.
We have lived almost an entire century where resources were so abundant that major powers simply didn't need to fight each other. We will see what happens once these resources (oil, water, etc) start to dry up.
23 representatives with PhDs. 17 with MDs. 166 with JDs. 22 with MBAs.
Those numbers add up to 228 advanced degrees, which is about 52% of the House of Representatives. Heck, almost 60% of Senators have law degrees. I haven't checked the numbers you gave, but you seem to have validated that most congressmen have advanced degrees (there is likely overlap, such as a JD having an MBA, but even being close to 50% is pretty high). And considering that about 10% of citizens have Masters degrees or higher, the average knowledge of a congressmen far exceeds the knowledge of the average voter.
What we've got DOESN'T work, it's been broken since nearly the beginning but it's been the best we've ever been able to put together. Coupled with strong constitutional civil rights protections, direct democracy could be the best thing so far. It would certainly be capable of being the most fair.
In my opinion one of the very things breaking our system is how politicians have to adhere to so many of the rediculous wishes of the majority. Giving more power to the voters would just result in half the taxes and twice the social programs.
Seriously, can anybody make a case that Facebook will not end up like Myspace?
It is easy to make such a case. MySpace capped at a little over 100 million users, compared to Facebook's 800+ million. That means their lock-in is an order of magnitude larger than MySpace's was. MySpace also had both Friendster and Facebook as serious competitors during its own meteoric rise, while today there is no viable alternative to Facebook. The massive flop of Google+ only cements the real possibility that Facebook is here to stay. (obviously this is only me making a case, I have no idea what will happen to Facebook)
I would have guessed that someone who uses their smart phone only for Facebook would use more bandwidth than your average smartphone user. But if these facebook only internet plans actually exist, it seems I am wrong.
Now you have to decide what is more important for society. That always the best people are hired (no quotas) or that discrimination against a group of people is reduced (quotas).
I honestly believe that it is most important to ensure that the best people are hired. You can either put less qualified people into positions, or you can put effort into training discriminated groups so they have a similar chance of being the most qualified. One method harms our economy in the name of fairness, and the other helps utilize waisted human capital. I choose the latter.
I am a big fan of increased legal immigration to the US and increased education to underprivileged children, but only because it increases the skill level of the average person employed in our economy. Not out of any misplaced sense of fairness.
The day before the IPO my coworkers and I were talking about it over lunch. One of our main topics of conversations was how Facebook's current revenue stream is irrelevant, since a company with a P/E over 100 (and a fairly saturated market) is obviously being traded based on potential new revenue streams (like monetizing user data). Another topic was how mobile devices do not show nearly as much advertisement, and that so many of Facebook's users are using their phones to access Facebook. So in Facebook's case, anyone thinking that this company's current revenue stream was going to grow by orders of magnitude was deluding themselves.
And we are just a bunch of software consultants, not company insiders. How is anyone going to claim ignorance on this one?
Nope, the E6520 tops out at 1080 vertical, just like every other single laptop on the market other than the Macbook Pro. Kind of sad since my very first laptop (a Dell) had 1600x1200 resolution back in 2002.
Absolutely true. I cannot believe that Apple is the only company still making a 1200 vertical resolution screen. It's annoying having to spend $2700 on the only decent laptop that still exists.
I think he meant to say that the percentage is meaningless, it is the actual dollar amount that matters. 0.5% may sound small, but $1,000,000 is a lot of money. Not relatively large, but that is still $1,000,000 more that should go to those investing in the movie and movie theatres, not people trying to get something for nothing.
Then again, that 0.5% is completely made up. For all I know, the pirating could have helped them make more money from free advertising ("Hey, I saw this awesome movie on Bittorrent, you should go see it this weekend").
Considering almost no one pays for college without loans today, any college whose students could not get loans would be dead in the water. That gives a lot of leverage for banks to "ask" colleges to play along.
Then there is the unspoken truth that most of these degrees are worthless. If banks ever released official statistics on what degrees from which colleges resulted in the most defaults, it would hurt a lot of programs. (and immensely help out prospective students, but who cares about that?)
But we don't have zero evidence of extraterrestrial life or the Higgs Boson particle. Since life exists on Earch, it is only logically that it might exist elsewere. And the Higgs Boson is predicted by the standard model of particle physics, and is currently our best hypothesis for explaining how particles have mass. We have a model of how the universe works, and we are trying to devise ways to either confirm that model or (much more likely) revise that model.
If scientists were just claiming the Higgs Boson particle exists (without even a theoretical mathematical model as a form of proof), and refused to perform experiments to confirm that it exists, then it could be compared with religious belief. Belief in gods may have been our best hypothesis for how the universe worked 2000 years ago, but believing in gods in the year 2012 is kind of like still believing that all substances are made up of Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether.
I agree with you when it comes to modern-age NFL players. They get paid more than enough to make up for reducing their quality of life in their twilight years.
But the problem comes from high school and college kids playing the sport. They do not get the reward, only the side effects (except perhaps for an easier time getting laid). And when it comes to high school students, they are minors who cannot be expected to make an educated decision regarding the long term effects of their decisions.
I doubt this research will change much for the NFL, except for some more rules to protect players. But high school football may be completely gone in 20 years. And if high school football goes away, you lose quite a bit of training for the NFL. The quality of players will drop if this happens.
Although remember that the mom and pop shops are also getting the indirect benefit of having more high income customers to sell to. It really is a win/win for absolutely everyone. Even many liberals understand that tax rates and revenue are not very elastic variables.
I'm a pharmacist and I get cold called, at work, at least 4 times every month. I want to shove the phone up their ass and twist it.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them... and you are pissed about it? I do get annoyed by recruiters who consistently email and call me, but that is just because they never really have a specific job they need you for. But this story is talking about companies specifically targetting valuable employees they want to hire (with a high enough salary bump to make them jump ship).
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig.
The main problem today is nobody even knows what the middle-class is. It is not people who work a job that makes good money. Those are still working class. The middle class is small business owners. Period.
That is a pretty silly distinction. So a family headed by two brain surgeons is working class but a family that owns a struggling taco stand is middle class?
Slashdot Mirror
Because the number of digits on your ID indicate how long you've been reading slashdot ... No need to be an elitist.
I wouldn't take any crap from someone with only a 6-digit ID either. Since when is that considered low?
I still don't see the difference. The success of both for-profit and charities can be measured in the same way:
Dollars spent * Efficiency Coefficient = Dollars of revenue
or
Dollars spent * Efficiency Coefficient = Lives saved/improved/etc.
Obviously you can spend too much time looking at metrics when running a charity, which would cause your efficiency to drop. But you can also spend too much time looking at metrics when running a for-profit, which would cause your efficiency to drop. The proper use of metrics is the exact same in both organizations: only spend time with metrics when it improves your bottom line (profit, lives saved, etc).
You talked about how it is difficult to measure success in charities, but it is also very difficult when running a company. Customer satisfaction is a common secondary interest in business, and it is very hard to quantify how that translates into increased profit. Or how about determining how much money an advertising campaign made you. Companies even have scenarios where their efforts are successful even if they lose profit, because they could have lost even more profit. That is no different than measuring success in terms of the number of people who didn't die (measuring by the number of customers you didn't lose).
Your post just sounds like someone who works in the industry, and has a problem when people try to effectively gauge if you are doing your job properly. Just like how teachers don't like to be measured, or programmers for that matter. Some fields are harder to create metrics for than others, but the core principles behind measuring success and failure based on the goals given to you are the same. Regardless of whether those goals are provided by stockholders or philanthropists.
2. Offer a refund to Linux users and apologize for wasting their time (remember, "no one plays games on Linux", so this shouldn't shouldn't cost them anything).
Offering a refund removes one of the few penalties for people who cheat the system for as long as they can before they get caught. In Blizzard's cat and mouse game of catching EULA infringers, the only way Blizzard can win is if they catch them before they make $60 from their exploits.
Blizzard could spend the extra time to investigate every single banning to see how bad it was (botting is obviously worse than playing on Linux), but why? They already have their Terms of Use and Policies which plainly say that you are not supposed to run the game in any manner that Blizzard did not intend. And I don't remember seeing any hint of Linux support on the box.
This is hardly news. Blizzard has probably tens of thousands of people out there trying to break their games and their economies. If Blizzard doesn't feel it is worth extending Warden (their anti-cheating tool) to work on Linux (because of the marginally increased sales that come from supporting Linux), then they don't have to.
If they allowed Diablo 3 to be played on Linux, but weren't able to properly monitor users who play on Linux, their WOW and Diablo 3 economies would be sunk.
Ah the might is right argument eh? I suppose all violent thieves take that view.
I am sure they do (until they realize the police have far more might). Just like judges take that view when they order child support payments, or police when they detain a car thief, or any other number of instances where people are forced to do something under threat. The only times people complain about "might makes right" is when they consider themselves weak.
To be honest, I originally posted hourly rates for both, then realized that salaries made more sense for both. I changed one, and forgot to change the other. Oops.
I know the difference between computer science and programming, and I mean no disrespect, but I do not know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. If you are inclined to do so, please enlighten me.
I used the analogy of mech. engineer vs CAD operator because I think it is basically the same as the distinction between software engineer and programmer. The software field is far less mature than any engineering fields, so the difference is far less clear. A coworker of mine once said, "If you can't easily tell the difference between a software engineer and programmer, you are a programmer [or not in the field]."
In my opinion, in 20 years you probably will have very distinct job titles, with very different pay rates. $30-40k/yr to just hammer out code (like today's CADists), but $40-80/hr to engineer software. This will be caused by improved tools, and more standardized industry standards.
I have more of a problem with the job title "Software Architect". They are simply very skilled software engineers. I have never heard of a very skilled chemical engineer being called a chemical architect.
I have to agree with parent... software engineering sounds suspiciously like the product of marketing, as there is nothing material to the result or the work. It's just a more ominous sounding term than "programmer," but only serves to dilute the meaning of the word "engineer," the way "sales engineer," "desktop engineer," or "Slashdot comment engineer" does. Programmers rule, are generally very bright and everyone knows it, and I don't know from where the need for this additional magnificence comes.
Why do you think adding the word "engineer" adds additional magnificence? Its origins lie in simply operating machines of war, so jobs such as locomotive engineer are much closer to the original meaning than mechanical engineering is.
But the more modern meaning can be broadly defined as someone who designs complex systems. I have no problem even with classifications such as custodial engineering, as long as you are doing innovative work towards the goal of improving the janitorial profession (and not just scrubbing toilets).
Arguing that most people who call themselves software engineers are actually programmers is a worthwhile discussion, but arguing that the field of software engineering does not exist is no different than saying computer scientists are no different than standard programmers.
In the sense that an engineer is actually someone that designs, builds or maintains engines, machines, or public works, i.e. works with physical things, software engineering is, I believe, a dubious term
So you are taking a term that originated before the advent of the digital world, and arbitrarily restricting it to apply only to "physical things"? If such a wide range of fields such as chemical, civil, and mechanical engineering can bear the same term, I see no reason why software is any different. The word engineering has evolved so much over the past few hundred years that even a drastic change would not be unprecedented. An engineer started out simply as an operator of machines, but more recently replaced the phrase "mechanic arts" in last hundred years or so to obtain its more common modern meaning (some colleges still have "Engineering and Mechanic Arts" departments). Perhaps you also disagree with calling simple mechanics engineers? (aka mechanical engineers)
I believe that it is very important to distinguish between computer scientists, software engineers, and programmers. Just like it is important to distinguish between physicists, mechanical engineers, and CAD operators. Whether we use the word engineer or not is fairly arbitrary, but I think it fits quite well. Software engineering is a young field, and best practices are far less mature than other fields, but that will improve over time.
I remember reading speculation from dawn of the 20th century, that claimed the expanding global economy made wars between major powers unlikely (sorry, no citation). It was wrong then, and it is probably wrong now. Nucular bombs have done far more to promote world peace than economic inter-dependence.
We have lived almost an entire century where resources were so abundant that major powers simply didn't need to fight each other. We will see what happens once these resources (oil, water, etc) start to dry up.
23 representatives with PhDs. 17 with MDs. 166 with JDs. 22 with MBAs.
Those numbers add up to 228 advanced degrees, which is about 52% of the House of Representatives. Heck, almost 60% of Senators have law degrees. I haven't checked the numbers you gave, but you seem to have validated that most congressmen have advanced degrees (there is likely overlap, such as a JD having an MBA, but even being close to 50% is pretty high). And considering that about 10% of citizens have Masters degrees or higher, the average knowledge of a congressmen far exceeds the knowledge of the average voter.
What we've got DOESN'T work, it's been broken since nearly the beginning but it's been the best we've ever been able to put together. Coupled with strong constitutional civil rights protections, direct democracy could be the best thing so far. It would certainly be capable of being the most fair.
In my opinion one of the very things breaking our system is how politicians have to adhere to so many of the rediculous wishes of the majority. Giving more power to the voters would just result in half the taxes and twice the social programs.
Seriously, can anybody make a case that Facebook will not end up like Myspace?
It is easy to make such a case. MySpace capped at a little over 100 million users, compared to Facebook's 800+ million. That means their lock-in is an order of magnitude larger than MySpace's was. MySpace also had both Friendster and Facebook as serious competitors during its own meteoric rise, while today there is no viable alternative to Facebook. The massive flop of Google+ only cements the real possibility that Facebook is here to stay. (obviously this is only me making a case, I have no idea what will happen to Facebook)
I would have guessed that someone who uses their smart phone only for Facebook would use more bandwidth than your average smartphone user. But if these facebook only internet plans actually exist, it seems I am wrong.
Now you have to decide what is more important for society. That always the best people are hired (no quotas) or that discrimination against a group of people is reduced (quotas).
I honestly believe that it is most important to ensure that the best people are hired. You can either put less qualified people into positions, or you can put effort into training discriminated groups so they have a similar chance of being the most qualified. One method harms our economy in the name of fairness, and the other helps utilize waisted human capital. I choose the latter.
I am a big fan of increased legal immigration to the US and increased education to underprivileged children, but only because it increases the skill level of the average person employed in our economy. Not out of any misplaced sense of fairness.
The day before the IPO my coworkers and I were talking about it over lunch. One of our main topics of conversations was how Facebook's current revenue stream is irrelevant, since a company with a P/E over 100 (and a fairly saturated market) is obviously being traded based on potential new revenue streams (like monetizing user data). Another topic was how mobile devices do not show nearly as much advertisement, and that so many of Facebook's users are using their phones to access Facebook. So in Facebook's case, anyone thinking that this company's current revenue stream was going to grow by orders of magnitude was deluding themselves.
And we are just a bunch of software consultants, not company insiders. How is anyone going to claim ignorance on this one?
You say 1920x1080 is unsuitable for development and what you propose to make it acceptable is add 120 pixels more. So like 3 lines of text?
Each line of text in your editor takes 40 pixels?
Nope, the E6520 tops out at 1080 vertical, just like every other single laptop on the market other than the Macbook Pro. Kind of sad since my very first laptop (a Dell) had 1600x1200 resolution back in 2002.
Absolutely true. I cannot believe that Apple is the only company still making a 1200 vertical resolution screen. It's annoying having to spend $2700 on the only decent laptop that still exists.
I think he meant to say that the percentage is meaningless, it is the actual dollar amount that matters. 0.5% may sound small, but $1,000,000 is a lot of money. Not relatively large, but that is still $1,000,000 more that should go to those investing in the movie and movie theatres, not people trying to get something for nothing.
Then again, that 0.5% is completely made up. For all I know, the pirating could have helped them make more money from free advertising ("Hey, I saw this awesome movie on Bittorrent, you should go see it this weekend").
Considering almost no one pays for college without loans today, any college whose students could not get loans would be dead in the water. That gives a lot of leverage for banks to "ask" colleges to play along.
Then there is the unspoken truth that most of these degrees are worthless. If banks ever released official statistics on what degrees from which colleges resulted in the most defaults, it would hurt a lot of programs. (and immensely help out prospective students, but who cares about that?)
But we don't have zero evidence of extraterrestrial life or the Higgs Boson particle. Since life exists on Earch, it is only logically that it might exist elsewere. And the Higgs Boson is predicted by the standard model of particle physics, and is currently our best hypothesis for explaining how particles have mass. We have a model of how the universe works, and we are trying to devise ways to either confirm that model or (much more likely) revise that model.
If scientists were just claiming the Higgs Boson particle exists (without even a theoretical mathematical model as a form of proof), and refused to perform experiments to confirm that it exists, then it could be compared with religious belief. Belief in gods may have been our best hypothesis for how the universe worked 2000 years ago, but believing in gods in the year 2012 is kind of like still believing that all substances are made up of Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether.
I agree with you when it comes to modern-age NFL players. They get paid more than enough to make up for reducing their quality of life in their twilight years.
But the problem comes from high school and college kids playing the sport. They do not get the reward, only the side effects (except perhaps for an easier time getting laid). And when it comes to high school students, they are minors who cannot be expected to make an educated decision regarding the long term effects of their decisions.
I doubt this research will change much for the NFL, except for some more rules to protect players. But high school football may be completely gone in 20 years. And if high school football goes away, you lose quite a bit of training for the NFL. The quality of players will drop if this happens.
Very good point.
Although remember that the mom and pop shops are also getting the indirect benefit of having more high income customers to sell to. It really is a win/win for absolutely everyone. Even many liberals understand that tax rates and revenue are not very elastic variables.
I'm a pharmacist and I get cold called, at work, at least 4 times every month. I want to shove the phone up their ass and twist it.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them ... and you are pissed about it? I do get annoyed by recruiters who consistently email and call me, but that is just because they never really have a specific job they need you for. But this story is talking about companies specifically targetting valuable employees they want to hire (with a high enough salary bump to make them jump ship).
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig.
The main problem today is nobody even knows what the middle-class is. It is not people who work a job that makes good money. Those are still working class. The middle class is small business owners. Period.
That is a pretty silly distinction. So a family headed by two brain surgeons is working class but a family that owns a struggling taco stand is middle class?