Well, my point is that high-level software engineering does not take vastly higher intelligence than debugging code, because both require a thorough understanding of how a complex system works and of varying technologies.
What about architect types who design a complex systems but has nothing to do with implementing it? We have a few of those at my office and they're good for spouting pure theory and little else. We've tried to get them to do at least some prototype coding, with bad results. They simply do not know how to implement what they design.
IMO theory is a superset of being able to code. You can code without knowing the OO theory behind what you're doing, but if you design something based on Best Practices(tm) and the trendy pattern/toolkit/framework of the month, that is impossible to implement, that's a sign of greater stupidity, not intelligence, to me.
I work on cars and computers. I'm a professional programmer; my working on cars is just a way to save money and time over having work done that I can handle. I have the "factory manual" for one of our cars. There are things left out. There are things that are mislabeled. It's written poorly, and doesn't tell you things like how to get the damn splash guard out of the way without cracking your fiberglass fender so you can get to the vacuum reservoir that's leaking.
The manuals usually tell you how to fix the problem, and you're right that any grease monkey can turn a wrench, but you're still on your own with diagnosing the problem. Being able to quickly and accurately diagnose a car problem is where a smart mechanic separates himself from some slob who makes 20 trips to autozone swapping out every part that could possibly be it (and then another 10 when the parts he got break because he swapped out the wrong things at the wrong time).
People like to think that pro mechanics just read the trouble codes logged by the engine computer, but those are only reliable for diagnosing failure of sensors, and even if they're accurate, they only apply to the intake and exhaust systems of the car. Any problem that is mechanical in nature still takes an understanding of how a car works - and they're all different. Some are very similar to others (like the GM lines from the late 80's), but they still have details that you have to be able to understand.
Nothing saves money in the short term like laying someone off. You don't have to pay the salary or the payroll taxes, and the remaining team will instinctively work harder to make up the difference in the hope that it'll keep them from being the next one to go.
It all depends on how short-sighted your bosses are whether you should bother with saving money or looking for another job or not.
As long as the company stays afloat until you're fully vested and can convert them to real money, they're not bad.
This is why Google's options are good and Sun's options are bad. Vesting time is in years and Google has a bright future, while Sun has a rough one (but survivable)
oh, give Orwell a break, he was writing in the 40's. Nobody bitches about Phillip K. Dick for having the most powerful computers in his stories be the size of the Empire State Building.
The planet isn't alive because of some application of the Gaia hypothesis (which I am not sure you actually understand, no offense), it's alive because there is a living fungal neural network covering the surface, under the seas, and buried within the crust (and there is more than a suggestion that the fungus was engineered by aliens for this purpose at least half a billion years ago). It's not an application of the Gaia hypothesis, it's a living alien creature of vast power. First, I'm aware that I oversimplified the Gaia hypothesis. But it's been a long while since I read the details of it.
Second, the thought of such a life form makes me feel puny and insignificant. I get enough of that feeling in the real world. I play games to feel exactly the opposite - powerful, and in control of my own destiny. I think most gamers do.
I also disagree with the plausibility of a superintelligent fungus even existing. Some would say that this means I have a limited imagination.
The game simply doesn't preach or force on the player some kind of ideology - it gives you choices to create the future how you believe it should be. I always play peaceful and defensive in civ games, and light side in star wars games, because I can't enjoy them any other way. I fired up KOTOR and tried to be a total dark bastard just to see what the different ending was like, and as soon as the apartment dwellers on Taris (if you're not familiar with the game, this is the beginning after-the-tutorial stage of the game) started begging for their lives I had to shut it off.
I'm aware that it's just a game, and that these aren't real people. I don't care. If I'm going to suspend my disbelief I have to put myself in the shoes of the character/leader, there in the game, and if the game is based on something I don't believe in, I can't do that.
There's only one faction in SMAC that really suits me, and that's the Morganites. I really tried to like SMAC and I played it quite a bit. Once I won the game as Morgan at a low difficulty level, there was nothing else there for me.
The game is about exploring different future societies and how they would interact with each other. I disagree with this. Why? Because it's not set on Earth. If you're going to focus on societal dynamics, you have to limit the other variables. The game being set on another planet ruins the realism of its simulation of human dynamics because nobody's been to another planet so nobody knows how we would react to living there. There's no basis in fact, it's purely speculation.
Some would say that taking earth geography and politics out of the equation makes it more of a pure simulation not influenced by earth "stuff", but humans will always think in earth terms, as long as they know of earth. The faction leaders in SMAC do.
I can deal with the diplomacy, but the military aspect of civ gets to be ridiculous when you're fighting a war and have over 20 maneuvering units that you have to control the movements of for every...single....little.....square.......
I never played MoM. I was rebelling against high fantasy when it came out. I played the hell out of MOO1, though, and it's still one of my favorites. Too bad MOO3 is a spreadsheet instead of a game.
I can't get past the back story and the philosophy in SMAC. I tried, believe me.
It may just be new labels for Civ2 concepts to most players, but the new labels get me thinking about what those labels mean and then I realize that I'm not playing a game, I'm propagandizing myself. That's what I don't like.
All of these civ-type games get really tedious for me towards endgame. I'm not into the grand military conquest thing, or heavy-duty diplomacy. I'm into exploration and planning of cities and infrastructure. Once the whole world gets revealed, Civ bores me.
I didn't like Alpha Centauri because I disagree with most of the ideology that the game is based on. I don't personally believe in the Gaia hypothesis (i.e. the planet itself is alive) or that the ultimate goal of humanity is to leave our bodies and become one with some machine, and that the only way to keep order is through blatant mind control of "drones". It had an elitist feel about it that really left a bad taste in my mouth.
now they can all merge with a financial services company and be iOpenING.org . har har har
Re:Let people know exactly what you expect of them
on
Geeks in Management?
·
· Score: 1
this takes cooperation from the employees, too. I've known many people who would happily take on other peoples' work, especially if they were trying to get in their pants or had some other ulterior motive.
Even though a large majority of Americans are capital investors, Are you talking about 401(k)? Just wait until the regular folks' portfolios start growing to the size of the big money guys' - we'll have another correction, like the 'bursting' of the dot-com bubble. The investor class does not want the working class to accumulate wealth and the 401k is their way of ensuring that they do not.
those who are not have basic economic rights, democratic rights, and other rights. Please show me a case where someone with little to no net worth went up against a millionaire and won.
Slashdot Mirror
where've you been, Stallman's been doing that since 1985!
Bloody hell
what, can't you read?
Why do you hate America?
Well, my point is that high-level software engineering does not take vastly higher intelligence than debugging code, because both require a thorough understanding of how a complex system works and of varying technologies.
What about architect types who design a complex systems but has nothing to do with implementing it? We have a few of those at my office and they're good for spouting pure theory and little else. We've tried to get them to do at least some prototype coding, with bad results. They simply do not know how to implement what they design.
IMO theory is a superset of being able to code. You can code without knowing the OO theory behind what you're doing, but if you design something based on Best Practices(tm) and the trendy pattern/toolkit/framework of the month, that is impossible to implement, that's a sign of greater stupidity, not intelligence, to me.
You're wrong.
I work on cars and computers. I'm a professional programmer; my working on cars is just a way to save money and time over having work done that I can handle. I have the "factory manual" for one of our cars. There are things left out. There are things that are mislabeled. It's written poorly, and doesn't tell you things like how to get the damn splash guard out of the way without cracking your fiberglass fender so you can get to the vacuum reservoir that's leaking.
The manuals usually tell you how to fix the problem, and you're right that any grease monkey can turn a wrench, but you're still on your own with diagnosing the problem. Being able to quickly and accurately diagnose a car problem is where a smart mechanic separates himself from some slob who makes 20 trips to autozone swapping out every part that could possibly be it (and then another 10 when the parts he got break because he swapped out the wrong things at the wrong time).
People like to think that pro mechanics just read the trouble codes logged by the engine computer, but those are only reliable for diagnosing failure of sensors, and even if they're accurate, they only apply to the intake and exhaust systems of the car. Any problem that is mechanical in nature still takes an understanding of how a car works - and they're all different. Some are very similar to others (like the GM lines from the late 80's), but they still have details that you have to be able to understand.
and masturbating is more fun without the clean up afterwards
Slashdot is the only place on the internet where you can find this said. Ever.
Nothing saves money in the short term like laying someone off. You don't have to pay the salary or the payroll taxes, and the remaining team will instinctively work harder to make up the difference in the hope that it'll keep them from being the next one to go.
It all depends on how short-sighted your bosses are whether you should bother with saving money or looking for another job or not.
what if you have it loaded with George Harrison's "All Things Shall Pass"?
dammit, why did I burn my mod points up on that stupid message queuing thread?
Well maybe if someone maybe a really good MMORPG in ASCII graphics I'd play it
You just set yourself up for a horde of unwashed MUD geeks to come along and tell you all about their sadly irrelevant pastimes.
As long as the company stays afloat until you're fully vested and can convert them to real money, they're not bad.
This is why Google's options are good and Sun's options are bad. Vesting time is in years and Google has a bright future, while Sun has a rough one (but survivable)
oh, give Orwell a break, he was writing in the 40's. Nobody bitches about Phillip K. Dick for having the most powerful computers in his stories be the size of the Empire State Building.
IN KOREA, only old people spank the monkey!
David Thewlis should have gotten an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. That was some great work by him in that movie.
Thanks for the in depth explanation.
The planet isn't alive because of some application of the Gaia hypothesis (which I am not sure you actually understand, no offense), it's alive because there is a living fungal neural network covering the surface, under the seas, and buried within the crust (and there is more than a suggestion that the fungus was engineered by aliens for this purpose at least half a billion years ago). It's not an application of the Gaia hypothesis, it's a living alien creature of vast power.
First, I'm aware that I oversimplified the Gaia hypothesis. But it's been a long while since I read the details of it.
Second, the thought of such a life form makes me feel puny and insignificant. I get enough of that feeling in the real world. I play games to feel exactly the opposite - powerful, and in control of my own destiny. I think most gamers do.
I also disagree with the plausibility of a superintelligent fungus even existing. Some would say that this means I have a limited imagination.
The game simply doesn't preach or force on the player some kind of ideology - it gives you choices to create the future how you believe it should be.
I always play peaceful and defensive in civ games, and light side in star wars games, because I can't enjoy them any other way. I fired up KOTOR and tried to be a total dark bastard just to see what the different ending was like, and as soon as the apartment dwellers on Taris (if you're not familiar with the game, this is the beginning after-the-tutorial stage of the game) started begging for their lives I had to shut it off.
I'm aware that it's just a game, and that these aren't real people. I don't care. If I'm going to suspend my disbelief I have to put myself in the shoes of the character/leader, there in the game, and if the game is based on something I don't believe in, I can't do that.
There's only one faction in SMAC that really suits me, and that's the Morganites. I really tried to like SMAC and I played it quite a bit. Once I won the game as Morgan at a low difficulty level, there was nothing else there for me.
The game is about exploring different future societies and how they would interact with each other.
I disagree with this. Why? Because it's not set on Earth. If you're going to focus on societal dynamics, you have to limit the other variables. The game being set on another planet ruins the realism of its simulation of human dynamics because nobody's been to another planet so nobody knows how we would react to living there. There's no basis in fact, it's purely speculation.
Some would say that taking earth geography and politics out of the equation makes it more of a pure simulation not influenced by earth "stuff", but humans will always think in earth terms, as long as they know of earth. The faction leaders in SMAC do.
I can deal with the diplomacy, but the military aspect of civ gets to be ridiculous when you're fighting a war and have over 20 maneuvering units that you have to control the movements of for every...single....little.....square.......
I never played MoM. I was rebelling against high fantasy when it came out. I played the hell out of MOO1, though, and it's still one of my favorites.
Too bad MOO3 is a spreadsheet instead of a game.
I can't get past the back story and the philosophy in SMAC. I tried, believe me.
It may just be new labels for Civ2 concepts to most players, but the new labels get me thinking about what those labels mean and then I realize that I'm not playing a game, I'm propagandizing myself. That's what I don't like.
All of these civ-type games get really tedious for me towards endgame. I'm not into the grand military conquest thing, or heavy-duty diplomacy. I'm into exploration and planning of cities and infrastructure. Once the whole world gets revealed, Civ bores me.
I didn't like Alpha Centauri because I disagree with most of the ideology that the game is based on. I don't personally believe in the Gaia hypothesis (i.e. the planet itself is alive) or that the ultimate goal of humanity is to leave our bodies and become one with some machine, and that the only way to keep order is through blatant mind control of "drones". It had an elitist feel about it that really left a bad taste in my mouth.
Maybe I just don't like 4x games at all.
now they can all merge with a financial services company and be iOpenING.org . har har har
this takes cooperation from the employees, too. I've known many people who would happily take on other peoples' work, especially if they were trying to get in their pants or had some other ulterior motive.
You are dead-on and that's a realization that everyone who has any sort of healthy life needs to come to eventually.
"MOD PARENT UP"
gee, you'd think it was personal or something.
how's that dick cheney fuckdoll working out for you?
"Good! Now all the unholy poor will die faster!"
Even though a large majority of Americans are capital investors,
Are you talking about 401(k)? Just wait until the regular folks' portfolios start growing to the size of the big money guys' - we'll have another correction, like the 'bursting' of the dot-com bubble. The investor class does not want the working class to accumulate wealth and the 401k is their way of ensuring that they do not.
those who are not have basic economic rights, democratic rights, and other rights.
Please show me a case where someone with little to no net worth went up against a millionaire and won.