I think more interesting is the fact that you can trace the growth of software engineering through these bugs. The most recent bug on the list (2000) was largely a case of good software being misused. Its not surprising that recent developments in software development have been largely focused not on the engineering output, but the user experience. Processes designed to get programmers thinking about not only how the system works at the code level, but how it will be used as well.
I do think the original conclusion is reasonable, although not supported. Software CAN be largely free of error, but it requires a dedication to engineering (process), skill, and expertise all at once. As the serious bugs in the list occured, software development has evolved to keep them from happening in the future. The scary thing is that a great many companies, working on critical systems, still refuse to adopt the modern practices that give them the best chance of NOT killing anybody. That fact alone makes the argument for certification quite compelling.
Its a pain that keeps me from buying many games in the first place. My PC Gaming is basically completely relegated to my laptop.. carrying around the CD's for all of the games I would want to play is both inconvenient and rather unncesary. There is nothing more frusturating than being in the airport wanting to play something and realizing that I left the CD at home.
For games I really like I'll go through the trouble of getting the no cd crack... more and more, however, I simply don't purchase games. They may think they are preventing piracy, but in reality they are also preventing sales. I leave it to them to decide which one is really more damaging to the bottom line.
I've built a pretty nice little career on the same philosphy this guy has. When something needs to be done, do it... if you do it right (it is a risk, no doubt) the rewards can be huge. At the same time, when you fail the fall-out can be equally impressive.
However, the willingness to take risks is often what seperates the career implementor (which is great for many people) from the executive who approves their projects.
"What if we hadn't blocked THAT because we feared..."
The argument your putting forth appears to be something like:
1) RFID's in merchandise 2) ???? 3) Big Brother!
While I understand the need to defend privacy as diligently as possible, simply reacting against technologies with truly useful applications because they might impact privacy seems foolish to me.
I for one would REALLY like to be able to simply call home and ask my Kitchen if I have milk.. or what I need to buy to make a certain recipe. RFID's make that practical.
There are numerous examples (in this thread alone) that justify RFID's as a useful and important technology. The key is to find ways to control the downside, while preserving as much of the upside as possible. Its a much better approach than simply the fear mongering FUD that this topic seems to conjure up so easily.
Being in a startup position, without the bankroll needed to just rent more space, cubes are an absolutely essential piece of the puzzle. What I was trying to drive home is that just because your using cubes (out of neccesity), it doesn't mean the office environment has to feel like a dilbert cartoon. With a little creativity a business can show that it really does care about its employees and the environment they work in.
The company I work for is moving to a new office. I was quite directly involved in the space planning for the new office. I fought long and hard for private offices for our development staff, but the budget simply didn't allow it. Its not that offices are particularly more expensives than cubes, but the fact that a private wall arrangement takes up a LOT of space.. and space is expensive.
Instead, we really worked to put together a cubicle arrangement that optimizes the work space. We have social/meeting areas that are walled off to move the noise away from the cubicle areas. The cubicle arrangment is quite unique.. it maximizes privacy and minimizes direct sight lines into the cubes themselvse. We went with brand new high quality cubicles.. the place FEELS like a quality work space. Most importantly, we went with large cubes.. giving the developers the elbow room they need to be comfortable.
Probably most importantly, we've provided office features designed to get people OUT of the cubicles once in awhile. We've dedicated space to a lounge area with nice comfortable couches, foosball table, TV (with cable), XBox, and several cool bistro tables and board games are intended to give the staff more to do than sit in their cube and surf slashdot all day:) In short.. we want a office space that treats professionals like professionals.
I think its entirely possible to have a great environment without offices. I do beleive that offices are optimal, but not always realistic. Particularly for a young company like ours.
I'm on the other side. I currently have multiple software development positions open (c++). Our average time to hire is something like 3 months. One position has been open for nearly 5 months at this point. Apparently Dallas Texas lacks quality software engineers. Sure we've had lots of resumes come our way, and have conducted literally hundreds of interviews.. yet finding good people has proven to be quite elusive. Particularly finding Americans with the skills we need is unbelievably difficult.
Its a rather interesting disconnect. We need folks, and simply can't find any. Everyone else seems to need work, and they simply can't find any. I'm not sure what the truth is.
And before you ask:
Yes, we do pay well. No we don't exclusively hire young (We've recently hired a developer with more than 20 years of experience) No we don't exclusively hire experienced developers (Our MOST recent hire was more or less just out of college)
We have 50 primary voting systems, and many variations on those within the states themselves.
However, in general, the system is very much like the one you describe. There are several observers at each polling place, representing both major parties (and in many jurisdictions a seperate observer representing the independent parties). There are laws surrounding the handling and transport of the ballot boxes (again, requiring observers from both parties) as well as the ballot counting process (automated in most places at this point).
Most recounts are done by hand, again with equal representation for the parties involved.
I think we do elections pretty well overall. A few cases (such as the ballot in florida and the new electronic voting machines) show some serious need for improvement, but I do think the results of the elections have almost always been fair and accurate.
The very methodology used in this case seems rather incorrect to me.
The assumption (as stated in the paper): Since Yahoo claims to have indexed twice as much as google, searches should return twice as many entries.
That assumption is flat out incorrect. There are actually multiple problems.
First, the scope of the search (based on index terms) is really up to the search engine itself. Since each search engine does not return the entire database as search results, it is very much up to the individual search algorithm to determine the depth of entries considered to 'match' a set of terms. That's what is really being reflected in these results.. it is not the overall size of the index, but simply how aggressive the search algorithm is in matching terms to entries.
Even if the algorithms where identical (same algorithm being run across both indexes), the nature of search does not scale in that way. If Yahoo has, for instance, becomre more aggressive in indexing message board and forum content, then only searches that play to those subjects should return more results than Google. Since searches are by definition narrowing on a data set, a methodology needs to be developed that more effectively tests the BREADTH of the results more than simply testing the depth.
After all, what porn you bought yesterday is of immense value to sociologists studying human behavior. I would think that would meet the requirement of 'adding meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge'. Same goes for your TV viewing habits and almost any other thing that wants to be tracked.
I imagine similiar thought could be applied to almost anything. Trying to deliniate between the two simply seems like an exercise in rationlization. You want the information that benefits you to be free, but want to suppress that which doesn't. Ecomomics in action really.
Microsoft is a publicly traded company, and releasing information about product features is considered material information. Thus, if they put in a feature they announced was not going to be available in a major product they would be in serious trouble with the SEC.
We do require C++ experience.. that's the tool (and the mindset really) that we require. We can't afford to take a risk on someone who is an established programmer, who may (or may not) transition into being a great OO developer given enough time. That's just not realistic.
The H1B's go through the exact same process as any Americans we interview. We actually tend to bring the H1 hires up to the pay rate of their American counterparts, rather than going the other way. We want to secure those talented enough for us to hire them in the first place, not merely pay them as little as possible.
We have 9 open positions currently for C++ developers. We have high expecatations in terms of developer skill. This means understanding the language at some depth..
We can't find 9 people in the Dallas area (or willing to relocate) to fill these. I've done around 50 interviews in the last 4 weeks. Of those 90% have been foreign workers needing H1B's. We've extended 2 offers. If there are a lot of out of work American programmers, we can't find them.
I actually really like the idea of these prequels. Just make sure that the screenplay is handled by whoever did Knights of the Old Republic. There is a lot of interesting ground to cover in the Star Wars universe. I would actually like to see another Star Wars trilogy done in the KOTOR setting (long long before Luke). Hell, the most enjoyable Star Wars experiences I've had in the last 10 years have been those two games (first better than the second for sure)... why can't they bring that level of polish to the movies?
The biggest difference has nothing to with graphics. These consoles finally have the power to really do some interesting real time physics. Now environments can be MUCH more interactive than they have been in the past. While the genre might be the same, the dynamic environments will completely change the game. That's what has me excited..looking at some of the videos coming out of E3 (Call of Duty for the XBox 360 for example) shows just how revolutionary this will really be.
I'm definitely excited about this next generation. The graphic enhancements are nice, but the horespower these machines have will allow real environments to be created for the first time and that has the potential to really change gaming for the better.
It's interesting how this particular act has really snowballed. Originally the idea behind the sex offenders list was to notify local residents when an offender moved next door. Fair enough really.. It's sad for the offender, but they are after all offenders (although the scope of who is on the list is rather stupid as has already been discussed).
Now, however, the sex offenders list is being used all over the place. Hell, you can't even get into Six Flags anymore if you are on that list. It's a classic case of a piece of legislation being taken to more and more extremes..
During my undergraduate years I was in an honors program at a certain college in the middle of Arkansas. This honors program, by its very design, was intended to challenge the fundamental belief system of its students. It exposed students to a variety of new religious philosophies, explored the abortion debate, and took on a variety of other issues that most of the students had never been exposed to before.
The results where.. shocking. About 80% of the incoming freshman in my class had some attachment to religion (more often than not 'fundamentalist' in nature). I remember my first week there we tore into the evolution debate. I had spent the first 18 years of my life assuming that everyone had simply moved past creationism, and to my shock a large group of honors students where arguing for the 'science' of creationism. I came to realize just how blind I had been to the problem.
Over the next two years the fundamentalists went in one two directions. Some simply refused to accept what they heard, and went into a sort of isolationist denial. For the most part these kids didn't finish the program.
For the rest (most?) the classes challenged their belief system. They began to realize that the reality of the world they live in was far different from the one their preacher had laid out for them. While very few turned on their religion completely, they did begin to abandon the literal bible ideas that they had began with. Most became some sort of 'liberal' christians.
The most interesting part was the backlash from the parents of these newly enlightened students. As the change really took effect the parents literally paraded in and yelled and screamed at the programs director. For these people, simply exposing new ideas to their kids (and thus challenging their belief systems) was more or less the same as turning their kids into satanists.
I finally came to realize that these parents FEARED knowledge. Religion, to them, is a form of security. Having a convienent belief system that takes all of the complexity out of the world is so comforting and so comfortable that operating outside of that scares the living hell out of them. When you have something like that, you become almost irrational in defending it. That means that secular ideas must be avoided at all costs.. because it is those IDEAS that break down their religous beliefs. That's why there are so many Christian book stores, music stores, craft stores, restuarants, and everything else. These people NEED to be immersed in a mono-culture because without it they may find out that life isn't as convienently explained as they NEED to beleive it is.
The use of government money doesn't (in my opinion) matter one bit. They should live up to those standards because its simply the right thing to do. Instead of being another divisive organization in our society.. why not try being what they claim to be?
Slashdot Mirror
I think more interesting is the fact that you can trace the growth of software engineering through these bugs. The most recent bug on the list (2000) was largely a case of good software being misused. Its not surprising that recent developments in software development have been largely focused not on the engineering output, but the user experience. Processes designed to get programmers thinking about not only how the system works at the code level, but how it will be used as well.
I do think the original conclusion is reasonable, although not supported. Software CAN be largely free of error, but it requires a dedication to engineering (process), skill, and expertise all at once. As the serious bugs in the list occured, software development has evolved to keep them from happening in the future. The scary thing is that a great many companies, working on critical systems, still refuse to adopt the modern practices that give them the best chance of NOT killing anybody. That fact alone makes the argument for certification quite compelling.
Its a pain that keeps me from buying many games in the first place. My PC Gaming is basically completely relegated to my laptop.. carrying around the CD's for all of the games I would want to play is both inconvenient and rather unncesary. There is nothing more frusturating than being in the airport wanting to play something and realizing that I left the CD at home.
For games I really like I'll go through the trouble of getting the no cd crack... more and more, however, I simply don't purchase games. They may think they are preventing piracy, but in reality they are also preventing sales. I leave it to them to decide which one is really more damaging to the bottom line.
or its a good way to become a CTO.
I've built a pretty nice little career on the same philosphy this guy has. When something needs to be done, do it... if you do it right (it is a risk, no doubt) the rewards can be huge. At the same time, when you fail the fall-out can be equally impressive.
However, the willingness to take risks is often what seperates the career implementor (which is great for many people) from the executive who approves their projects.
Of course the inverse logic works as well.
"What if we hadn't blocked THAT because we feared..."
The argument your putting forth appears to be something like:
1) RFID's in merchandise
2) ????
3) Big Brother!
While I understand the need to defend privacy as diligently as possible, simply reacting against technologies with truly useful applications because they might impact privacy seems foolish to me.
I for one would REALLY like to be able to simply call home and ask my Kitchen if I have milk.. or what I need to buy to make a certain recipe. RFID's make that practical.
There are numerous examples (in this thread alone) that justify RFID's as a useful and important technology. The key is to find ways to control the downside, while preserving as much of the upside as possible. Its a much better approach than simply the fear mongering FUD that this topic seems to conjure up so easily.
That's the point I was really trying to make..
Being in a startup position, without the bankroll needed to just rent more space, cubes are an absolutely essential piece of the puzzle. What I was trying to drive home is that just because your using cubes (out of neccesity), it doesn't mean the office environment has to feel like a dilbert cartoon. With a little creativity a business can show that it really does care about its employees and the environment they work in.
Amen:)
The company I work for is moving to a new office. I was quite directly involved in the space planning for the new office. I fought long and hard for private offices for our development staff, but the budget simply didn't allow it. Its not that offices are particularly more expensives than cubes, but the fact that a private wall arrangement takes up a LOT of space.. and space is expensive.
Instead, we really worked to put together a cubicle arrangement that optimizes the work space. We have social/meeting areas that are walled off to move the noise away from the cubicle areas. The cubicle arrangment is quite unique.. it maximizes privacy and minimizes direct sight lines into the cubes themselvse. We went with brand new high quality cubicles.. the place FEELS like a quality work space. Most importantly, we went with large cubes.. giving the developers the elbow room they need to be comfortable.
Probably most importantly, we've provided office features designed to get people OUT of the cubicles once in awhile. We've dedicated space to a lounge area with nice comfortable couches, foosball table, TV (with cable), XBox, and several cool bistro tables and board games are intended to give the staff more to do than sit in their cube and surf slashdot all day:) In short.. we want a office space that treats professionals like professionals.
I think its entirely possible to have a great environment without offices. I do beleive that offices are optimal, but not always realistic. Particularly for a young company like ours.
I'm on the other side. I currently have multiple software development positions open (c++). Our average time to hire is something like 3 months. One position has been open for nearly 5 months at this point. Apparently Dallas Texas lacks quality software engineers. Sure we've had lots of resumes come our way, and have conducted literally hundreds of interviews.. yet finding good people has proven to be quite elusive. Particularly finding Americans with the skills we need is unbelievably difficult.
Its a rather interesting disconnect. We need folks, and simply can't find any. Everyone else seems to need work, and they simply can't find any. I'm not sure what the truth is.
And before you ask:
Yes, we do pay well.
No we don't exclusively hire young (We've recently hired a developer with more than 20 years of experience)
No we don't exclusively hire experienced developers (Our MOST recent hire was more or less just out of college)
Yes.. that worked wonders for Kerry
We have 50 primary voting systems, and many variations on those within the states themselves.
However, in general, the system is very much like the one you describe. There are several observers at each polling place, representing both major parties (and in many jurisdictions a seperate observer representing the independent parties). There are laws surrounding the handling and transport of the ballot boxes (again, requiring observers from both parties) as well as the ballot counting process (automated in most places at this point).
Most recounts are done by hand, again with equal representation for the parties involved.
I think we do elections pretty well overall. A few cases (such as the ballot in florida and the new electronic voting machines) show some serious need for improvement, but I do think the results of the elections have almost always been fair and accurate.
And you'd get exactly what you paid for.
The very methodology used in this case seems rather incorrect to me.
The assumption (as stated in the paper): Since Yahoo claims to have indexed twice as much as google, searches should return twice as many entries.
That assumption is flat out incorrect. There are actually multiple problems.
First, the scope of the search (based on index terms) is really up to the search engine itself. Since each search engine does not return the entire database as search results, it is very much up to the individual search algorithm to determine the depth of entries considered to 'match' a set of terms. That's what is really being reflected in these results.. it is not the overall size of the index, but simply how aggressive the search algorithm is in matching terms to entries.
Even if the algorithms where identical (same algorithm being run across both indexes), the nature of search does not scale in that way. If Yahoo has, for instance, becomre more aggressive in indexing message board and forum content, then only searches that play to those subjects should return more results than Google. Since searches are by definition narrowing on a data set, a methodology needs to be developed that more effectively tests the BREADTH of the results more than simply testing the depth.
Because lawyers are clearly much cheaper...:)
See: JAMDAT (you know, the bowling game on your phone).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=JMDT
Market Cap: 720.06M
Revenue: 44.67M
Or an amazing 16 times over revenue.
How do you know the difference?
After all, what porn you bought yesterday is of immense value to sociologists studying human behavior. I would think that would meet the requirement of 'adding meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge'. Same goes for your TV viewing habits and almost any other thing that wants to be tracked.
I imagine similiar thought could be applied to almost anything. Trying to deliniate between the two simply seems like an exercise in rationlization. You want the information that benefits you to be free, but want to suppress that which doesn't. Ecomomics in action really.
1. Write a shareware game
2. Mention it in a Slashdot post that asks a vague question concerning linux.
3. PROFIT!!
Too true..
I made the mistake of introducing my wife to MP3 players and iTunes. Last year we spent more than 10x on music than we ever have before.
We when 8 years between the first al-qeada attack on American soil and the second. Don't get comfortable just yet.
Only problem with that is that it's fraud...
Microsoft is a publicly traded company, and releasing information about product features is considered material information. Thus, if they put in a feature they announced was not going to be available in a major product they would be in serious trouble with the SEC.
So I kind of doubt your hypothesis.
We do require C++ experience.. that's the tool (and the mindset really) that we require. We can't afford to take a risk on someone who is an established programmer, who may (or may not) transition into being a great OO developer given enough time. That's just not realistic.
The H1B's go through the exact same process as any Americans we interview. We actually tend to bring the H1 hires up to the pay rate of their American counterparts, rather than going the other way. We want to secure those talented enough for us to hire them in the first place, not merely pay them as little as possible.
We have 9 open positions currently for C++ developers. We have high expecatations in terms of developer skill. This means understanding the language at some depth..
0 2017&AVSDM=2005-05-27+10%3A07%3A53&Logo=1&opt=go&s ort=rv&vw=b&cy=US&brd=1,1862,1863&rad=50&q=quickof fice
We can't find 9 people in the Dallas area (or willing to relocate) to fill these. I've done around 50 interviews in the last 4 weeks. Of those 90% have been foreign workers needing H1B's. We've extended 2 offers. If there are a lot of out of work American programmers, we can't find them.
For anyone who might be interested:
http://jobsearch.monster.com/getjob.asp?JobID=294
I actually really like the idea of these prequels. Just make sure that the screenplay is handled by whoever did Knights of the Old Republic. There is a lot of interesting ground to cover in the Star Wars universe. I would actually like to see another Star Wars trilogy done in the KOTOR setting (long long before Luke). Hell, the most enjoyable Star Wars experiences I've had in the last 10 years have been those two games (first better than the second for sure)... why can't they bring that level of polish to the movies?
The biggest difference has nothing to with graphics. These consoles finally have the power to really do some interesting real time physics. Now environments can be MUCH more interactive than they have been in the past. While the genre might be the same, the dynamic environments will completely change the game. That's what has me excited..looking at some of the videos coming out of E3 (Call of Duty for the XBox 360 for example) shows just how revolutionary this will really be.
I'm definitely excited about this next generation. The graphic enhancements are nice, but the horespower these machines have will allow real environments to be created for the first time and that has the potential to really change gaming for the better.
It's interesting how this particular act has really snowballed. Originally the idea behind the sex offenders list was to notify local residents when an offender moved next door. Fair enough really.. It's sad for the offender, but they are after all offenders (although the scope of who is on the list is rather stupid as has already been discussed).
Now, however, the sex offenders list is being used all over the place. Hell, you can't even get into Six Flags anymore if you are on that list. It's a classic case of a piece of legislation being taken to more and more extremes..
I can answer with an andecote.
During my undergraduate years I was in an honors program at a certain college in the middle of Arkansas. This honors program, by its very design, was intended to challenge the fundamental belief system of its students. It exposed students to a variety of new religious philosophies, explored the abortion debate, and took on a variety of other issues that most of the students had never been exposed to before.
The results where.. shocking. About 80% of the incoming freshman in my class had some attachment to religion (more often than not 'fundamentalist' in nature). I remember my first week there we tore into the evolution debate. I had spent the first 18 years of my life assuming that everyone had simply moved past creationism, and to my shock a large group of honors students where arguing for the 'science' of creationism. I came to realize just how blind I had been to the problem.
Over the next two years the fundamentalists went in one two directions. Some simply refused to accept what they heard, and went into a sort of isolationist denial. For the most part these kids didn't finish the program.
For the rest (most?) the classes challenged their belief system. They began to realize that the reality of the world they live in was far different from the one their preacher had laid out for them. While very few turned on their religion completely, they did begin to abandon the literal bible ideas that they had began with. Most became some sort of 'liberal' christians.
The most interesting part was the backlash from the parents of these newly enlightened students. As the change really took effect the parents literally paraded in and yelled and screamed at the programs director. For these people, simply exposing new ideas to their kids (and thus challenging their belief systems) was more or less the same as turning their kids into satanists.
I finally came to realize that these parents FEARED knowledge. Religion, to them, is a form of security. Having a convienent belief system that takes all of the complexity out of the world is so comforting and so comfortable that operating outside of that scares the living hell out of them. When you have something like that, you become almost irrational in defending it. That means that secular ideas must be avoided at all costs.. because it is those IDEAS that break down their religous beliefs. That's why there are so many Christian book stores, music stores, craft stores, restuarants, and everything else. These people NEED to be immersed in a mono-culture because without it they may find out that life isn't as convienently explained as they NEED to beleive it is.
Ignorance is truly bliss.
The use of government money doesn't (in my opinion) matter one bit. They should live up to those standards because its simply the right thing to do. Instead of being another divisive organization in our society.. why not try being what they claim to be?