autechre writes: "Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society."
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
If this is not self-evident I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Martin Blank quotes a link: "Although we havenâ(TM)t yet conducted longitudinal studies in human MDMA users, we know that brain serotonin innervations in monkeys treated with MDMA still isnâ(TM)t normal 7 years later."
Without listing the dose this information is useless. If I take enough vitamin E I'll die. Doesn't mean it's dangerous.
"Also, if you think declining effects are a reason people put down a drug, then maybe you should do a little research into drug behavior, as increasing resistance is often a reason for increased uptake of a drug. "
I don't understand people who assume that since I don't agree with them I clearly haven't done enough research. I also refuse to continue such debates as they do not ever get anywhere useful.
I'm saying that people should be allowed to do to themselves what they want. This is not to suggest that people should be allowed to do things like drive while intoxicated. Then you begin to create a hazard for other people. If you want to do ecstacy, go ahead. And if you want to shower your brain with electromagnetic stimulation, go bonkers.
One might object that drug use creates a burden upon the rest of society. Well, so does a belief in a god yet that isn't made illegal.
manonthemoon writes: " The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry. Sometimes very damaging changes."
No evidence of this. In the one experiment that theoretically shows this, monkeys were given massive doses of MDMA. We're talking on the order of 40 pills, IIRC. Anybody who does that deserves the damage. There is zero evidence whatsoever that the doses taken by humans to achieve the affect causes any long-term effect on the brain whatsoever.
"This is not even going into the addictive properties of most drugs."
Ecstacy is not known to be addictive. In fact it is counter-addictive in that subsequent doses cause a much less profound effect on the user such that many people simply lose interest.
"Two minutes after I started the first drawing, I was instructed to try again. After another two minutes, I tried a third cat, and then in due course a fourth. Then the experiment was over, and the electrodes were removed. I looked down at my work. The first felines were boxy and stiffly unconvincing. But after I had been subjected to about 10 minutes of transcranial magnetic stimulation, their tails had grown more vibrant, more nervous; their faces were personable and convincing. They were even beginning to wear clever expressions. I could hardly recognize them as my own drawings, though I had watched myself render each one, in all its loving detail. Somehow over the course of a very few minutes, and with no additional instruction, I had gone from an incompetent draftsman to a very impressive artist of the feline form."
I would think a more convincing experiment would be to start with the machine turned on for the full "10 minutes", the cat drawing made, then the machine turned off and another made. If this is correct then the second should actually be worse than the first.
The idea that the ability to draw better cats improves as you practice doesn't seem terribly startling.
From the article: "While I drew, Snyder continued his lecture. ''You could call this a creativity-amplifying machine. It's a way of altering our states of mind without taking drugs like mescaline. You can make people see the raw data of the world as it is. As it is actually represented in the unconscious mind of all of us.''"
What I find seriously funny is the fact that while drug use is seriously shunned around most of the so-called "developed" world, there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulation utilizing this method. So it isn't the end we're concerned about, it's the vehicle.
Do you realize that roughly 6x as many people have died either outright or by drowning after inhaling fumes while behind a motorboat since 1991 than have while taking MDMA (ecstacy)? And that doesn't even include the people who drowned and nobody suspected the poisoning.
Do you realize that between cirrhosis of the liver (alcohol) and deaths resulting from drunk driving accidents there are 60,000 killed in the US every year? And ephedra, creatine and ecstacy are the problems?
Sorry for going off on a rant here. I welcome this sort of research. But it does point out that what Americans are against is not people doing things to their own bodies. What people fear is a boogeyman that has been fueled by a multi-billion dollar industry that they need to maintain. Ie, jobs.
At first I just chalked up the down webserver to some poor schmed's server going belly-up under the weight of the slashdot effect. But no, that link is sitting on the New York Times server:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/magazine/22S
But for some reason I can get to the NYT.com frontpage, albeit after some delay. Their search results do not show anything matching that article name ("Savant for a Day") and Google doesn't have anything either.
Ca bien. Will just have to wait for it to die off.
I haven't minded any of the changes, personally, but they are certainly there.
Examples range from the xp system (remember you used to have to wait in the SOI?) to things that are in the literature and promised for release but simply don't exist (orbital strikes for CR4 and CR5).
Again, I haven't minded any changes or omissions, but some others sure have.
The window for beta ended about 2 weeks prior to release. He or she would have had a 0% chance of getting in at that point.
Further, the game they released, the game that we are playing about 4 weeks into the release, is not the same game that existed in beta in some very fundamental ways.
Dot.Com.CEO writes: "I bought it the day it came out. I played it for about 10 hours TRYING to get excited about the game and find a purpose. I read articles, "how-to"s and various tips in forums. At the end I realised that I spent most of my time trying to get to a battle where, after a couple of minutes, I would get killed. Frustrating, to say the least."
Not to be a weenie but that's simple. Join a squad. They provide a lot more survivability and they also generally provide an AMS (respawn tube). In the average hour, I probably spent about 10 minutes traveling.
If you don't want to go the squad route, just getting yourself some fast transportation will do the trick. When you die you're given, at a minimum, two respawn points; one base and one AMS (the closest of each). So you respawn at the nearest base, pick up your mosquito/reaver/wraith/whatever and zip, right back in it.
Also, if you get the hacking cert, you can pull vehicles out of enemy terminals. If you have the infiltration suit cert, it's 10x easier.
I'm not necessarily saying that you should start playing again, but merely that with the right tactics this is a non-issue.
"I cancelled my subscription and I really don't think Sony can fix this mess up, no matter how many updates they put out. Truly a waste of good money."
I can't explain why some people found Unreal and Quake so interesting and re-playable but not this when this actually offers more things to do. But I have noticed that a good many people who were positively insane about the game in beta are now fairly blah about it and considering quitting. I just quit yesterday, informed my outfit, etc, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that I can't think of what Sony could do to correct the issue either.
I've been playing Planetside since beta and let me tell you, it should never have been released. It has bugs out the wazoo. The stealth suits are visibile. Things that shouldn't be stealthed but are. Kludgy physics. The lag can be horrendous at peak times. When there are big problems the devs tell you bullsh*t like "disable your virus software" even though the patch two days later reveal they knew it was theirs all along.
mattis_f writes: "This is not capitalistic gentrification. Quite the opposite, this protects you from being sued if you write something inappropriate. All you need to do is post a link."
I was not aware that this provided any sort of indemnification. Can you reference that?
This is what I'm worried about, misuse. If there are no protections to force or at least compel only those who actually need relief from seeking it, what you'll see is widespread abuse. And I think that is precisely what people fear here.
j7953 asserts: "No, he's not required to pay. You said something about him that he thinks is wrong, so you have to accept the consequences and correct your mistake. (Note that I think he won't have a right of reply if you can proof that facts you presented were correct.)"
j7953 writes: "Somone only has a right of reply only if something about him has been presented as a fact (so opinions are not included), and if he thinks it's wrong. That's a pretty strong requirement. Yes, you can still safely say "I don't like you" because it's clearly an op"
George Steinbrenner: Can I get thrown out of the game for what I think? Umpire: No. George Steinbrenner: I think you're an asshole!
What is "presented as fact" can also be fairly nebulous, though much less so I'll grant.
I asked: "If a company claims that their product works, is that tacit criticism of someone who says that it does not? "
j7953 replied: "No. If the company simply writes "our product works," they don't mention any other person, so there simply isn't anyone who might have a right of reply."
So what if I say the president is a liar. I didn't say the president of what. Who gets to reply? How specific does my object of criticism have to be prior to being able to level a response?
And as someone else noted, how big is this rebuttal allowed to be? Is the author of the rebuttal required to pay for the bandwidth used by the rebuttal? If not, why not?
I'm just astonished at what a large infrastructure this is going to require to settle these questions. Again, slander, libel and defamation of character are already illegal. This is sailing into some veeeery dangerous and arbitrary waters, IMO.
Nobody seems to be indicating how the stated goal here is not already covered by existing laws. What additional protection does this offer and should it be offered?
I asked: "Who decides what qualifies as "criticism?""
RobinH replied: "How about common sense?"
Then you're sailing into very arbitrary waters. When you do, you're then at the mercy of a potentially capricious judge. Which is something that English law tries takes great pains to avoid.
I'd also like to point out that while saying "common sense," you did not actually answer any of the questions stated. These can be found in my original post" They're not really answerable because when you do take a position on a thing (which is precisely what law does) then you will find that there are people -- with good arguments -- that disagree. Then, once you're in the position of defending a tenuous position you will have proven my very point (that these questions are not at all cut-and-dried).
What qualifies as "criticism" is a matter of opinion, not common sense. Further, it, like love, is in the eyes of the beholder.
"I would expect most points of disagreement would be resolved between the two parties, but ultimately, the courts could decide what qualifies as criticism."
I can see why one might believe this but it won't work that way. This is because it will simply be another tool for those with the dough to proceed to weild.
"At least a law like this means that the criticised party is guaranteed airtime to rebut the argument in the same forum that they were attacked in."
Your argument is a sort of "if it is used only for good" things. Looks great on paper. But, like the DMCA, you have to look at the very likely (some might use the phrase "inevitable") concsequences. Do you really think that companies are not going to use this measure to quash legitimate criticism? I know I sure as heck don't have the time or the resources (much less the inclination) to set up a mechanism by which every vegitable, plant or mineral I think comes up short has the right to use my webspace and time to rebut my ideas.
Besides, what gives you the idea that there is some intrinsic human right to "equal time?" You have a right to speak. You do not have a right to a forum to be heard. You want to put up a website with your rebuttal, fine. Do so. I didn't rely on [insert thing here] to air my views. Why should they rely on me to air theirs?
"It also follows the basic principle that the government exists to protect an individual's security. The media CAN do significant harm to a person by publishing false or questionable information. A law like this helps protect an individual from harm."
This is already well covered by law; slander and defamation of character. Why do you need more laws? The only reason I can see is to chill speech. This isn't to defend against unfair criticism so much as stop all criticism before it begins.
Are opinions included? Am I allowed to say "I don't like you" or do I have to post your rebuttal?
Are business covered? Do they have to post replies from their competitors? If a company claims that their product works, is that tacit criticism of someone who says that it does not? Does that person get to post their complaint on the offending companies website?
What if the criticism is oblique? "Other products aren't as fast as the Super Widget 2003" Who gets to reply?
This is capitalistic gentrification. This is some organization planting a flag and claiming the internet as principally a business stomping ground.
CowboyNeal writes: "This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product."
This is a little like saying "political freedom is nice, but what if it isn't the best tool for the existing government?"
Some -- myself being one of them -- might argue that being able to look freely upon the code that you are running trumps any notion of "best tool." Similarly, despotism might be viewed as the "best tool" but it is simply inferior because it must take from the user to, at best, theoretically give something back. Even if it succeeds in it's stated goal, it still comes up short.
Re:Shortsighted Fallout
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
kin korn karn writes: "your first paragraph is true. my latest project had me updating a program I wrote 2 years ago. It was the nastiest piece of spaghetti-coded perl/CGI you've seen in a while. I would have handled it so much better today."
I've been writing code -- PHP (laugh if you want to), PostgreSQL and some light scripting -- for 14 months now. IMO, coding is a lot like life but each code-month is like two life-years.
I say this because right around the 9-month coding point I thought I knew everything. =)
Now that I'm effectively 28 in coding years, I realize that the only thing I know is that I don't know shit. But I'm enjoying the process.
Shortsighted Fallout
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think coding is definitely a life-long learning experience. What you think about your year-1 code at year-2 is always "what trash." Always. Same for you at year three when looking at year two. Lather, rinse, repeat. And it's true because you're always refining your art.
A good analogy, IMO, would be just about any other "art." Do you want a first-year apprentice repairing your shoes? Sure, I guess, if speed is your goal. If you want it done right, you might want his boss with 20 years under his belt.
So why are they opting for the first-year apprentice? Well, who expects to be employed at a company ten or twenty years from now? Quality takes time to become obvious. Why should they shell out the extra money (time is money) for something that won't be obvious until after they've gone? They have a bottom line to meet and whether or not they're there in six months -- nevermind as many years -- is whether or not their numbers are lower than anyone elses. Investors are a fickle lot.
This trend is nothing more than the fallout of a society that no longer has it's citizens displaying one, two, maybe three companies on their resume. It is short-sightedness and I'm afraid there isn't anything you can really do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the reply. I'm glad I irritated you. It demonstrates that my post was on-mark. Truly stupid posts are just modded down or ignored.
autechre writes:
"Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society."
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
If this is not self-evident I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Martin Blank quotes a link:
"Although we havenâ(TM)t yet conducted longitudinal studies in human MDMA users, we know that brain serotonin innervations in monkeys treated with MDMA still isnâ(TM)t normal 7 years later."
Without listing the dose this information is useless. If I take enough vitamin E I'll die. Doesn't mean it's dangerous.
Hell, you can do it with water, too.
"Also, if you think declining effects are a reason people put down a drug, then maybe you should do a little research into drug behavior, as increasing resistance is often a reason for increased uptake of a drug. "
I don't understand people who assume that since I don't agree with them I clearly haven't done enough research. I also refuse to continue such debates as they do not ever get anywhere useful.
I'm saying that people should be allowed to do to themselves what they want. This is not to suggest that people should be allowed to do things like drive while intoxicated. Then you begin to create a hazard for other people. If you want to do ecstacy, go ahead. And if you want to shower your brain with electromagnetic stimulation, go bonkers.
One might object that drug use creates a burden upon the rest of society. Well, so does a belief in a god yet that isn't made illegal.
manonthemoon writes:
" The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry. Sometimes very damaging changes."
No evidence of this. In the one experiment that theoretically shows this, monkeys were given massive doses of MDMA. We're talking on the order of 40 pills, IIRC. Anybody who does that deserves the damage. There is zero evidence whatsoever that the doses taken by humans to achieve the affect causes any long-term effect on the brain whatsoever.
"This is not even going into the addictive properties of most drugs."
Ecstacy is not known to be addictive. In fact it is counter-addictive in that subsequent doses cause a much less profound effect on the user such that many people simply lose interest.
"Two minutes after I started the first drawing, I was instructed to try again. After another two minutes, I tried a third cat, and then in due course a fourth. Then the experiment was over, and the electrodes were removed. I looked down at my work. The first felines were boxy and stiffly unconvincing. But after I had been subjected to about 10 minutes of transcranial magnetic stimulation, their tails had grown more vibrant, more nervous; their faces were personable and convincing. They were even beginning to wear clever expressions. I could hardly recognize them as my own drawings, though I had watched myself render each one, in all its loving detail. Somehow over the course of a very few minutes, and with no additional instruction, I had gone from an incompetent draftsman to a very impressive artist of the feline form."
I would think a more convincing experiment would be to start with the machine turned on for the full "10 minutes", the cat drawing made, then the machine turned off and another made. If this is correct then the second should actually be worse than the first.
The idea that the ability to draw better cats improves as you practice doesn't seem terribly startling.
From the article:
"While I drew, Snyder continued his lecture. ''You could call this a creativity-amplifying machine. It's a way of altering our states of mind without taking drugs like mescaline. You can make people see the raw data of the world as it is. As it is actually represented in the unconscious mind of all of us.''"
What I find seriously funny is the fact that while drug use is seriously shunned around most of the so-called "developed" world, there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulation utilizing this method. So it isn't the end we're concerned about, it's the vehicle.
Do you realize that roughly 6x as many people have died either outright or by drowning after inhaling fumes while behind a motorboat since 1991 than have while taking MDMA (ecstacy)? And that doesn't even include the people who drowned and nobody suspected the poisoning.
Do you realize that between cirrhosis of the liver (alcohol) and deaths resulting from drunk driving accidents there are 60,000 killed in the US every year? And ephedra, creatine and ecstacy are the problems?
Sorry for going off on a rant here. I welcome this sort of research. But it does point out that what Americans are against is not people doing things to their own bodies. What people fear is a boogeyman that has been fueled by a multi-billion dollar industry that they need to maintain. Ie, jobs.
w00t.
If the parent post doesn't get modded up to +5 by the day's end, I'm quitting slashdot entirely.
BlueTooth writes:
" Oh man, how long can this discussion go when you _can't_ RTFA?"
This is Slashdot, man. Stupidity has no boundaries. It could go on until the sun extinguishes.
At first I just chalked up the down webserver to some poor schmed's server going belly-up under the weight of the slashdot effect. But no, that link is sitting on the New York Times server:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/magazine/22S
But for some reason I can get to the NYT.com frontpage, albeit after some delay. Their search results do not show anything matching that article name ("Savant for a Day") and Google doesn't have anything either.
Ca bien. Will just have to wait for it to die off.
JVert writes:
"This is great for skinning..."
I'll take your word for it. My cat absolutely refuses to get in it.
The UK Home Office Later Admitted That The Public Do Want More English Teachers Though.
I haven't minded any of the changes, personally, but they are certainly there.
Examples range from the xp system (remember you used to have to wait in the SOI?) to things that are in the literature and promised for release but simply don't exist (orbital strikes for CR4 and CR5).
Again, I haven't minded any changes or omissions, but some others sure have.
The window for beta ended about 2 weeks prior to release. He or she would have had a 0% chance of getting in at that point.
Further, the game they released, the game that we are playing about 4 weeks into the release, is not the same game that existed in beta in some very fundamental ways.
Dot.Com.CEO writes:
"I bought it the day it came out. I played it for about 10 hours TRYING to get excited about the game and find a purpose. I read articles, "how-to"s and various tips in forums. At the end I realised that I spent most of my time trying to get to a battle where, after a couple of minutes, I would get killed. Frustrating, to say the least."
Not to be a weenie but that's simple. Join a squad. They provide a lot more survivability and they also generally provide an AMS (respawn tube). In the average hour, I probably spent about 10 minutes traveling.
If you don't want to go the squad route, just getting yourself some fast transportation will do the trick. When you die you're given, at a minimum, two respawn points; one base and one AMS (the closest of each). So you respawn at the nearest base, pick up your mosquito/reaver/wraith/whatever and zip, right back in it.
Also, if you get the hacking cert, you can pull vehicles out of enemy terminals. If you have the infiltration suit cert, it's 10x easier.
I'm not necessarily saying that you should start playing again, but merely that with the right tactics this is a non-issue.
"I cancelled my subscription and I really don't think Sony can fix this mess up, no matter how many updates they put out. Truly a waste of good money."
I can't explain why some people found Unreal and Quake so interesting and re-playable but not this when this actually offers more things to do. But I have noticed that a good many people who were positively insane about the game in beta are now fairly blah about it and considering quitting. I just quit yesterday, informed my outfit, etc, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that I can't think of what Sony could do to correct the issue either.
This looks a lot like Planetside. Better, really.
I've been playing Planetside since beta and let me tell you, it should never have been released. It has bugs out the wazoo. The stealth suits are visibile. Things that shouldn't be stealthed but are. Kludgy physics. The lag can be horrendous at peak times. When there are big problems the devs tell you bullsh*t like "disable your virus software" even though the patch two days later reveal they knew it was theirs all along.
Now I'm blathering...
mattis_f writes:
"This is not capitalistic gentrification. Quite the opposite, this protects you from being sued if you write something inappropriate. All you need to do is post a link."
I was not aware that this provided any sort of indemnification. Can you reference that?
This is what I'm worried about, misuse. If there are no protections to force or at least compel only those who actually need relief from seeking it, what you'll see is widespread abuse. And I think that is precisely what people fear here.
j7953 asserts:
"No, he's not required to pay. You said something about him that he thinks is wrong, so you have to accept the consequences and correct your mistake. (Note that I think he won't have a right of reply if you can proof that facts you presented were correct.)"
Back this up.
j7953 writes:
"Somone only has a right of reply only if something about him has been presented as a fact (so opinions are not included), and if he thinks it's wrong. That's a pretty strong requirement. Yes, you can still safely say "I don't like you" because it's clearly an op"
George Steinbrenner: Can I get thrown out of the game for what I think?
Umpire: No.
George Steinbrenner: I think you're an asshole!
What is "presented as fact" can also be fairly nebulous, though much less so I'll grant.
I asked:
"If a company claims that their product works, is that tacit criticism of someone who says that it does not? "
j7953 replied:
"No. If the company simply writes "our product works," they don't mention any other person, so there simply isn't anyone who might have a right of reply."
So what if I say the president is a liar. I didn't say the president of what. Who gets to reply? How specific does my object of criticism have to be prior to being able to level a response?
And as someone else noted, how big is this rebuttal allowed to be? Is the author of the rebuttal required to pay for the bandwidth used by the rebuttal? If not, why not?
I'm just astonished at what a large infrastructure this is going to require to settle these questions. Again, slander, libel and defamation of character are already illegal. This is sailing into some veeeery dangerous and arbitrary waters, IMO.
Nobody seems to be indicating how the stated goal here is not already covered by existing laws. What additional protection does this offer and should it be offered?
I asked:
"Who decides what qualifies as "criticism?""
RobinH replied:
"How about common sense?"
Then you're sailing into very arbitrary waters. When you do, you're then at the mercy of a potentially capricious judge. Which is something that English law tries takes great pains to avoid.
I'd also like to point out that while saying "common sense," you did not actually answer any of the questions stated. These can be found in my original post" They're not really answerable because when you do take a position on a thing (which is precisely what law does) then you will find that there are people -- with good arguments -- that disagree. Then, once you're in the position of defending a tenuous position you will have proven my very point (that these questions are not at all cut-and-dried).
What qualifies as "criticism" is a matter of opinion, not common sense. Further, it, like love, is in the eyes of the beholder.
"I would expect most points of disagreement would be resolved between the two parties, but ultimately, the courts could decide what qualifies as criticism."
I can see why one might believe this but it won't work that way. This is because it will simply be another tool for those with the dough to proceed to weild.
"At least a law like this means that the criticised party is guaranteed airtime to rebut the argument in the same forum that they were attacked in."
Your argument is a sort of "if it is used only for good" things. Looks great on paper. But, like the DMCA, you have to look at the very likely (some might use the phrase "inevitable") concsequences. Do you really think that companies are not going to use this measure to quash legitimate criticism? I know I sure as heck don't have the time or the resources (much less the inclination) to set up a mechanism by which every vegitable, plant or mineral I think comes up short has the right to use my webspace and time to rebut my ideas.
Besides, what gives you the idea that there is some intrinsic human right to "equal time?" You have a right to speak. You do not have a right to a forum to be heard. You want to put up a website with your rebuttal, fine. Do so. I didn't rely on [insert thing here] to air my views. Why should they rely on me to air theirs?
"It also follows the basic principle that the government exists to protect an individual's security. The media CAN do significant harm to a person by publishing false or questionable information. A law like this helps protect an individual from harm."
This is already well covered by law; slander and defamation of character. Why do you need more laws? The only reason I can see is to chill speech. This isn't to defend against unfair criticism so much as stop all criticism before it begins.
Who decides what qualifies as "criticism?"
Are opinions included? Am I allowed to say "I don't like you" or do I have to post your rebuttal?
Are business covered? Do they have to post replies from their competitors? If a company claims that their product works, is that tacit criticism of someone who says that it does not? Does that person get to post their complaint on the offending companies website?
What if the criticism is oblique? "Other products aren't as fast as the Super Widget 2003" Who gets to reply?
This is capitalistic gentrification. This is some organization planting a flag and claiming the internet as principally a business stomping ground.
CowboyNeal writes:
"This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product."
This is a little like saying "political freedom is nice, but what if it isn't the best tool for the existing government?"
Some -- myself being one of them -- might argue that being able to look freely upon the code that you are running trumps any notion of "best tool." Similarly, despotism might be viewed as the "best tool" but it is simply inferior because it must take from the user to, at best, theoretically give something back. Even if it succeeds in it's stated goal, it still comes up short.
kin korn karn writes:
"your first paragraph is true. my latest project had me updating a program I wrote 2 years ago. It was the nastiest piece of spaghetti-coded perl/CGI you've seen in a while. I would have handled it so much better today."
I've been writing code -- PHP (laugh if you want to), PostgreSQL and some light scripting -- for 14 months now. IMO, coding is a lot like life but each code-month is like two life-years.
I say this because right around the 9-month coding point I thought I knew everything. =)
Now that I'm effectively 28 in coding years, I realize that the only thing I know is that I don't know shit. But I'm enjoying the process.
I think coding is definitely a life-long learning experience. What you think about your year-1 code at year-2 is always "what trash." Always. Same for you at year three when looking at year two. Lather, rinse, repeat. And it's true because you're always refining your art.
A good analogy, IMO, would be just about any other "art." Do you want a first-year apprentice repairing your shoes? Sure, I guess, if speed is your goal. If you want it done right, you might want his boss with 20 years under his belt.
So why are they opting for the first-year apprentice? Well, who expects to be employed at a company ten or twenty years from now? Quality takes time to become obvious. Why should they shell out the extra money (time is money) for something that won't be obvious until after they've gone? They have a bottom line to meet and whether or not they're there in six months -- nevermind as many years -- is whether or not their numbers are lower than anyone elses. Investors are a fickle lot.
This trend is nothing more than the fallout of a society that no longer has it's citizens displaying one, two, maybe three companies on their resume. It is short-sightedness and I'm afraid there isn't anything you can really do about it.