*Some* old programmers are like that. Not all. I've seen a few that don't keep up their skills, and they end up paying the price (long term job search). The problem is that a lot of people have a bias against ALL old programmers because of this.
Experience counts that equals productivity. Too many people attribute working long hours to being productive. No, that's just working long hours. Being productive is using your experience and your talent to get the job done well, and on time. If people just count the long hours that doesn't cut it... Sometimes they're working long hours because they're making all the mistakes the more experienced people can avoid.
Considering the way people freak out unless you speak "politically correctly" about darn near everything, we hit that part of "1984" a long time ago. It's the "thought police" straight out of the book.
A great example of this are so-called "hate crimes". I mean, holy crap, crimes against anyone are "hate crimes". Are the "thought police" going to divine what's in someone's brain when they commit these crimes? It's that way today.
Having to "not offend" someone by not using the politically correct term for something they might say is another example of this. I'm not talking about using derogatory terms against someone...that IS offensive.
There are many more examples. "1984" didn't happen in 1984, but it happened shortly afterwards. It's a shame that more people haven't realized this already.
Re:They're getting paid how much?
on
The Future of Emacs
·
· Score: 3, Funny
You know, if "according to RMS" wants the bugs fixed faster, he should roll up his sleeves and fix some of the bugs. That's what GPL is all about, after all. Rather than complaining, he should be in there helping.
Anyone can complain. Few take the responsibility for fixing the problem.
If you've paid attention, even to Slashdot, you'd see that the liberal Democrats are the ones doing it here. Tipper Gore (yes, that Gore), as an example, was the one that was instrumental on getting those stupid "warning" stickers on albums.
Gov Rod and Mrs. Gore are Democrats. I think that needs to be pointed out, because if they were Republicans, it would have been all over the story lead-in here. This is just another in a long line of Democrats trying create a "mommy-state" to keep us from ourselves.
Jimmy Carter? You're kidding, right? This guy has done nothing but shoot his mouth off about every damn thing, whether any one wants to hear it or not.
Don't get me wrong, Habit is a great great thing, but....an introvert? No way man.
Plus, I don't buy the brainpower thing either. I mean, the guy presided over an economy with a prime rate of 18% and gas lines like you won't believe. Brainpower....yeah, right.
The worst offenders of this are the morning shows on ABC, NBC and CBS. At least on Fox they have two sides for arguments... I can't even remember the last time they did that on the broadcast networks. You might not agree with what the other side says, but at least they have a chance to speak.
As for the "fairness doctrine" argument. People that use this tend to think that there's nothing wrong with the government funded left-biased NPR, yet get all up in arms about Limbaugh starts shooting his fat mouth off. Both are biased, it's just that Limbaugh is up front about it. Just witness that hissy fit that NPR had when someone wanted to add some "balance" to them. Nina Totenberg, balanced? Juan Williams? Nope. You want fairness? Cut NPR's government funding, and let them make it in the free market. The good programs (like "Fresh Air", "Prarie Home Companion", "Car Talk", just to name three) will find good homes, on XM, or get syndicated the way other programs do.
At least when Fox throws Fred Barnes on a panel, they'll throw on Juan Williams or one of the left-biased NPR reporters. Have you seen that on the non-Sunday news programs? Nope.
As for the opinions talk shows.... it's free market, baby. People support want they want, and don't support what the don't want.
I think newspapers need to do a little more naval gazing before casting stones at the bloggers.
Considering what various blog sites have found out about the "facts" that the news papers have dug up and reported, I wouldn't be so proud about everything that newspapers have done.
And the reason I say that is that the journalists that are supposedly reporting the facts of stories interject their own opinions into news events. That'd be fine if it were an opinion piece; but frequently you'll see there's a bias (left or right) thrown in just because of what the reporter thinks. For example, a reporter that is against abortion reports about "pro-life" demonstrations. A reporter that's for abortion says the same demonstration "anti-choice".
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts, and checking the bias at the door?
O'Reilly not the news. He's a "personality" (if you can even call him that).
The "fair and balanced" comes in during the real news broadcasts. They give both sides a chance to talk about the issue, which is a LOT more than ABC, NBC, or CBS does. Usually they just get one side to talk about what the other side is doing, and they don't give the other side a chance to answer any of the charges. That, frankly, is biased crap.
People might not like the fact that the "other side" gets a chance to speak on those issues, but it's a helluva lot more than most television news and newspapers do these days.
I completely disagree about the international news agencies too... they (both left and right) have their own axes to grind.
How can a "governing body" exist for something that it's currently not in charge of? This is like someone moving into your house, and then starts explaining how you've got everything set up incorrectly.
On the other hand, you have to have *some* meetings. A couple of jobs ago I was at a place that very rarely had meetings. The only way we'd find out what was going on throughout the rest of the organization was the rumor mill. The boss only handed out info to her pet employee. We'd have to ask her what the heck was going on, and sometimes we didn't get the full story (we'd find out later).
Maybe it was knowledge is power thing. This boss was all about "take no responsibility or the blame, but all the credit".
Take a careful look at the website. It's a liberal organization, so there isn't much surprise at they'd want to create yet another federal agency that could never be shut down.
The problem with starting something new up is that it already exists. There are a LOT of government agency programs that you can get money from to do software development if you're doing academic research. Some of those programs even require that you team with industry in some way (a start-up will do) to help do the tech transfer.
If they want to have existing agencies to do more software development stuff, great... we just don't need any new agencies to do it.
Note that in the statement you paste above, Kerry says "I will be voting to give the President the authority." That doesn't mean that Bush had to use that authority.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. If Kerry didn't want him to use it, he shouldn't have voted to give him the authority. If you give someone the authority to do something, there aren't strings attached, unless it said so in that vote. It didn't, there weren't.
The main opposition to the war, and the UN, were hip deep in Saddam's pocket. Take Galloway for example. Pretty damn said that people would support a facist state instead of deposing it.
and while every single Democrat is against the war today
This is a false statement. They might not like the way things are being handled, but not one Democrat in the Senate has gone on record that they oppose the war. If they have, please point out the official (not a blog) web page where they state it.
Why would you think the Republicans would oppose it? The Democrats have been having a hemorage about talk radio for years now, and have made several attempts to stop it. From my perspective, if they thought what was being said on talk radio was BS, they should get the facts and point it out at every opportunity, NOT restrict free speech. That'd be as bad as Republicans trying to shut down that liberal talk radio syndicate, Air America. They should BOTH exist. Let the people talk.
Is it because you think the Democrats always do the right thing? Far from it. For example, lately they've been doing things like this:
In 1991, the Boston Computer Society invited me to speak on the subject of Windows programming. Since I had written a book on Windows programming -- the 2nd edition of Programming Windows had been published just the previous year -- I figured I didn't really need to talk about that. Anybody who wanted to learn Windows programming could simply buy the book and read it in the privacy of their homes.
Instead, I decided to talk about something that people could not read about in my book. This was a subject that interested me at the time, which was how Microsoft first developed Windows, and how Microsoft and IBM then got involved in the development of OS/2, how Microsoft had convinced IBM to go graphical in the windowing environment, and how IBM decided they wanted to develop an entirely new API, and then how the success of Windows led to the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM
Well, people went berserk. I suppose they had been expecting me to tell them everything they needed to know about Windows programming in the space of a few hours, and that's certainly not what I was interested in doing.
Rule #1... If you're invited to speak on a topic, SPEAK ON THAT TOPIC. If you don't want to speak on that topic, DON'T EXCEPT THE GIG!
It's pretty damn rude of a speaker to do something like that, especially when people drive to get to a meeting like that, just to find out it's not what they were promised.
Petzold had been around the block a few times when that happened, you'd think he would have realized what a stupid thing to do that was. It's pretty damn arrogant to think that people would want to listen to whatever the hell he wanted to talk about.
Plus, there was a story of couple of years ago where China, North Korea, or Al-Jeezera (can't remember who) took an Onion story and reported it as fact.
This all comes down to lawyers protecting the trademark, anyway. This has nothing to do with parody.
Do I believe that the Onion's trying trick people in to thinking what they write is real? No...but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they got that letter because someone at Justice saw it, that the Onion didn't have permission to use it, and they got the letter based on the "implied endorsement" part of that section. The law doesn't say anything about the intent of the people that used it, it's that the government approved the use of it. I think it's just a bunch of lawyer speak to basically to prevent people from using it however they want.
Now, it could be (and probably is) something completely different than that... I'm not a lawyer, so there might be some other clause this falls under. It's just my guess of why they got it.
Corporate lawyer (the scum) spend all kinds of time protecting something as not to "dilute the brand". This is exactly the same thing.
I don't think it's not the satire that bothers them (well, it might bother them, but that's tough nertz to them... They're in politics, they should expect that), it's the use of the tradmark without permission. I could swear that Saturday Night Live has used the seal in any of their numerous sketches over the years, and they must have gotten permission to use it.
I could swear this has come up before in the past, but I can't remember where I read that. I think it had to do with someone selling coffee mugs, or t-shirts with the Seal on them.
Anyway, I think you're right that we won't agree on the interpretation. We're probably even discussing something that the lawyers aren't even using as their argument.:-):-)
It'll be interesting to hear more about what brought all this on.... If it's the parody or satire aspect of The Onion, then the government deserve to lose. If it's just protecting the trademark, then I think they deserve to win.
AIt doesn't say anything about a *reasonable person* confusing anything. It says that "for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States".
Re-read that again. That says two things:
1) That using it to pretend that there was an endorsement is illegal.
and
2) That even implying that there is an endorsement is illegal.
It's that second part, "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey" is the part that means it even implying that it's official is illegal. It doesn't mean that if people can reasonably figure out that it's not official, then it's ok.
Using it in the full context of what the law says, if you put in the meaning you think is there, it doesn't even make any sense.
They'll even get people in country, tailor job listings so specifically that only the H1B can be hired under it, and then not pay them the wages other workers would get. Shameful.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up.
You've got it exactly right.
*Some* old programmers are like that. Not all. I've seen a few that don't keep up their skills, and they end up paying the price (long term job search). The problem is that a lot of people have a bias against ALL old programmers because of this.
Experience counts that equals productivity. Too many people attribute working long hours to being productive. No, that's just working long hours. Being productive is using your experience and your talent to get the job done well, and on time. If people just count the long hours that doesn't cut it... Sometimes they're working long hours because they're making all the mistakes the more experienced people can avoid.
Considering the way people freak out unless you speak "politically correctly" about darn near everything, we hit that part of "1984" a long time ago. It's the "thought police" straight out of the book.
A great example of this are so-called "hate crimes". I mean, holy crap, crimes against anyone are "hate crimes". Are the "thought police" going to divine what's in someone's brain when they commit these crimes? It's that way today.
Having to "not offend" someone by not using the politically correct term for something they might say is another example of this. I'm not talking about using derogatory terms against someone...that IS offensive.
There are many more examples. "1984" didn't happen in 1984, but it happened shortly afterwards. It's a shame that more people haven't realized this already.
You know, if "according to RMS" wants the bugs fixed faster, he should roll up his sleeves and fix some of the bugs. That's what GPL is all about, after all. Rather than complaining, he should be in there helping.
Anyone can complain. Few take the responsibility for fixing the problem.
If you've paid attention, even to Slashdot, you'd see that the liberal Democrats are the ones doing it here. Tipper Gore (yes, that Gore), as an example, was the one that was instrumental on getting those stupid "warning" stickers on albums.
Gov Rod and Mrs. Gore are Democrats. I think that needs to be pointed out, because if they were Republicans, it would have been all over the story lead-in here. This is just another in a long line of Democrats trying create a "mommy-state" to keep us from ourselves.
Habit == Habitat
Jimmy Carter? You're kidding, right? This guy has done nothing but shoot his mouth off about every damn thing, whether any one wants to hear it or not.
....an introvert? No way man.
Don't get me wrong, Habit is a great great thing, but
Plus, I don't buy the brainpower thing either. I mean, the guy presided over an economy with a prime rate of 18% and gas lines like you won't believe. Brainpower....yeah, right.
You forgot NPR....
NPR - left (sometimes far left)
You need to re-read what I wrote.
The worst offenders of this are the morning shows on ABC, NBC and CBS. At least on Fox they have two sides for arguments... I can't even remember the last time they did that on the broadcast networks. You might not agree with what the other side says, but at least they have a chance to speak.
As for the "fairness doctrine" argument. People that use this tend to think that there's nothing wrong with the government funded left-biased NPR, yet get all up in arms about Limbaugh starts shooting his fat mouth off. Both are biased, it's just that Limbaugh is up front about it. Just witness that hissy fit that NPR had when someone wanted to add some "balance" to them. Nina Totenberg, balanced? Juan Williams? Nope. You want fairness? Cut NPR's government funding, and let them make it in the free market. The good programs (like "Fresh Air", "Prarie Home Companion", "Car Talk", just to name three) will find good homes, on XM, or get syndicated the way other programs do.
At least when Fox throws Fred Barnes on a panel, they'll throw on Juan Williams or one of the left-biased NPR reporters. Have you seen that on the non-Sunday news programs? Nope.
As for the opinions talk shows.... it's free market, baby. People support want they want, and don't support what the don't want.
I think newspapers need to do a little more naval gazing before casting stones at the bloggers.
Considering what various blog sites have found out about the "facts" that the news papers have dug up and reported, I wouldn't be so proud about everything that newspapers have done.
And the reason I say that is that the journalists that are supposedly reporting the facts of stories interject their own opinions into news events. That'd be fine if it were an opinion piece; but frequently you'll see there's a bias (left or right) thrown in just because of what the reporter thinks. For example, a reporter that is against abortion reports about "pro-life" demonstrations. A reporter that's for abortion says the same demonstration "anti-choice".
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts, and checking the bias at the door?
O'Reilly not the news. He's a "personality" (if you can even call him that).
The "fair and balanced" comes in during the real news broadcasts. They give both sides a chance to talk about the issue, which is a LOT more than ABC, NBC, or CBS does. Usually they just get one side to talk about what the other side is doing, and they don't give the other side a chance to answer any of the charges. That, frankly, is biased crap.
People might not like the fact that the "other side" gets a chance to speak on those issues, but it's a helluva lot more than most television news and newspapers do these days.
I completely disagree about the international news agencies too... they (both left and right) have their own axes to grind.
Maybe someone can explain this to me....
How can a "governing body" exist for something that it's currently not in charge of? This is like someone moving into your house, and then starts explaining how you've got everything set up incorrectly.
On the other hand, you have to have *some* meetings. A couple of jobs ago I was at a place that very rarely had meetings. The only way we'd find out what was going on throughout the rest of the organization was the rumor mill. The boss only handed out info to her pet employee. We'd have to ask her what the heck was going on, and sometimes we didn't get the full story (we'd find out later).
Maybe it was knowledge is power thing. This boss was all about "take no responsibility or the blame, but all the credit".
Take a careful look at the website. It's a liberal organization, so there isn't much surprise at they'd want to create yet another federal agency that could never be shut down.
The problem with starting something new up is that it already exists. There are a LOT of government agency programs that you can get money from to do software development if you're doing academic research. Some of those programs even require that you team with industry in some way (a start-up will do) to help do the tech transfer.
If they want to have existing agencies to do more software development stuff, great... we just don't need any new agencies to do it.
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. If Kerry didn't want him to use it, he shouldn't have voted to give him the authority. If you give someone the authority to do something, there aren't strings attached, unless it said so in that vote. It didn't, there weren't.
The main opposition to the war, and the UN, were hip deep in Saddam's pocket. Take Galloway for example. Pretty damn said that people would support a facist state instead of deposing it.
and while every single Democrat is against the war today
This is a false statement. They might not like the way things are being handled, but not one Democrat in the Senate has gone on record that they oppose the war. If they have, please point out the official (not a blog) web page where they state it.
Why would you think the Republicans would oppose it? The Democrats have been having a hemorage about talk radio for years now, and have made several attempts to stop it. From my perspective, if they thought what was being said on talk radio was BS, they should get the facts and point it out at every opportunity, NOT restrict free speech. That'd be as bad as Republicans trying to shut down that liberal talk radio syndicate, Air America. They should BOTH exist. Let the people talk.
a p/National/Maryland_Racial_Politics.html
Is it because you think the Democrats always do the right thing?
Far from it. For example, lately they've been doing things like this:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared-gen/
Not exactly enlightened in this day and age.
Well, to be fair, either do most bloggers.
FINALLY
In 1991, the Boston Computer Society invited me to speak on the subject of Windows programming. Since I had written a book on Windows programming -- the 2nd edition of Programming Windows had been published just the previous year -- I figured I didn't really need to talk about that. Anybody who wanted to learn Windows programming could simply buy the book and read it in the privacy of their homes.
Instead, I decided to talk about something that people could not read about in my book. This was a subject that interested me at the time, which was how Microsoft first developed Windows, and how Microsoft and IBM then got involved in the development of OS/2, how Microsoft had convinced IBM to go graphical in the windowing environment, and how IBM decided they wanted to develop an entirely new API, and then how the success of Windows led to the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM
Well, people went berserk. I suppose they had been expecting me to tell them everything they needed to know about Windows programming in the space of a few hours, and that's certainly not what I was interested in doing.
Rule #1... If you're invited to speak on a topic, SPEAK ON THAT TOPIC. If you don't want to speak on that topic, DON'T EXCEPT THE GIG!
It's pretty damn rude of a speaker to do something like that, especially when people drive to get to a meeting like that, just to find out it's not what they were promised.
Petzold had been around the block a few times when that happened, you'd think he would have realized what a stupid thing to do that was. It's pretty damn arrogant to think that people would want to listen to whatever the hell he wanted to talk about.
Well, you'd like to think that, but there are morons out there that take what The Onion publishes, and treat it as gospel:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm
Plus, there was a story of couple of years ago where China, North Korea, or Al-Jeezera (can't remember who) took an Onion story and reported it as fact.
This all comes down to lawyers protecting the trademark, anyway. This has nothing to do with parody.
Do I believe that the Onion's trying trick people in to thinking what they write is real? No...but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they got that letter because someone at Justice saw it, that the Onion didn't have permission to use it, and they got the letter based on the "implied endorsement" part of that section. The law doesn't say anything about the intent of the people that used it, it's that the government approved the use of it. I think it's just a bunch of lawyer speak to basically to prevent people from using it however they want.
:-) :-)
Now, it could be (and probably is) something completely different than that... I'm not a lawyer, so there might be some other clause this falls under. It's just my guess of why they got it.
Corporate lawyer (the scum) spend all kinds of time protecting something as not to "dilute the brand". This is exactly the same thing.
I don't think it's not the satire that bothers them (well, it might bother them, but that's tough nertz to them... They're in politics, they should expect that), it's the use of the tradmark without permission. I could swear that Saturday Night Live has used the seal in any of their numerous sketches over the years, and they must have gotten permission to use it.
I could swear this has come up before in the past, but I can't remember where I read that. I think it had to do with someone selling coffee mugs, or t-shirts with the Seal on them.
Anyway, I think you're right that we won't agree on the interpretation. We're probably even discussing something that the lawyers aren't even using as their argument.
It'll be interesting to hear more about what brought all this on.... If it's the parody or satire aspect of The Onion, then the government deserve to lose. If it's just protecting the trademark, then I think they deserve to win.
AIt doesn't say anything about a *reasonable person* confusing anything. It says that "for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States".
Re-read that again. That says two things:
1) That using it to pretend that there was an endorsement is illegal.
and
2) That even implying that there is an endorsement is illegal.
It's that second part, "in a manner reasonably calculated to convey" is the part that means it even implying that it's official is illegal. It doesn't mean that if people can reasonably figure out that it's not official, then it's ok.
Using it in the full context of what the law says, if you put in the meaning you think is there, it doesn't even make any sense.
Longer than that. At least since the mid-80s.
They'll even get people in country, tailor job listings so specifically that only the H1B can be hired under it, and then not pay them the wages other workers would get. Shameful.