"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"
Perhaps they need to be reminded to read that legend, which appears on every Federal Reserve Note.
IANAL, but I seem to recall that if one refuses payment or partial payment of a debt, then they are abandoning and voiding the debt. If they refuse payment in legal tender, you are 'off the hook'. If you offer a trained clerk a partial payment in cash, and they ask for full payment, see what happens when you ask "are you refusing my payment?"...
As a practical matter with hotels, car rentals, etc, they may require a huge deposit on cash transactions, with the reasoning that they wouldn't be able to come after you later if you trashed the room or the car. They might also require a ccard as ID, but they are still requied to take cash as payment.
Private companies are also allowed to set policies of not accpeting large quantities of small denominations, or not making change for large bills, but I'm not sure that they can completely refuse appropriate amounts of cash.
You'll get no argument from me on all the stupid things that university graduates can do. Merely having a degree does not make you smart, and I've already said that. However, just because some people with degrees do stupid things, does not mean that all university grads are stupid.
While you say that "so far it works", of your avoiding degrees, you also clearly express that you are "fedup with the kind of bullshit approach to hiring ", and make many arguments that it is a unreasonable to require a degree. If your approach actually worked well, I don't think you would express so much resentment. So, I think there is a problem there.
I also agree that most hiring sucks, and that the hiring people who didn't bother to look at your work were not doing their jobs. I see examining someone's work as a critical part of hiring -- it is of course the best indication of what they can do for my company.
Of course, I also see using language as a critical part of everyone's work at my company, even for the programmer. A programmer's job is more than coding. He or she must also communicate with the rest of the team, and with customers. I'm not the kind of manager that sticks the programmers in a hole. I want them to directly hear what the customer wants, and they must represent us well to give the customer confidence. (Of course, if I did have a programmer who spoke and wrote poorly, I would tend to keep them in the back.) So, I judge the programmer by BOTH his code and his language.
In using language, it is more than just a question of "Did you understand what I tried to say? Then I succeeded.". You need to consider your listener or reader. Can she immediately understand your point, or must she waste energy and time being distracted by your noise? If English is your second language, that is great, since you use it well for a non-native speaker, but trying to say that poor language doesn't matter is a mistake (when I have to use a second language, I don't try to make my lack of skill seem like a good thing).
You might compare bad use of language to the programmer you mentioned who wrote the "100 line long switch which does the same in every case as well as in the default [with] perfect in grammar and spelling". He could say the same thing about his code as you do about your language. He would say "Did the computer execute the code and produce the correct result? Then I succeeded!". But we would both say that this code executes more slowly, takes more resources, is far more difficult to maintain, etc.
In short, both bad uses of language degrade the results. Why not be good at both?
And seriously, if not having a degree is really working for you, then why waste time and effort on the resentment? If it is not working for you, then why not get one? The worst that happens is that you learn something.
You have a point that a degree, even from an Ivy League institution, does not automatically confer common sense, an ability to solve problems in the real world in real time, or even a guarantee that the person knows how to think well.
It is also sadly the case that many schools and so-called professors are a complete waste of time (and that is being generous).
I also think that most HR people and recruiters suck -- they don't really understand the real requirements, and just match lists of requirements and capabilities (and usually badly at that).
I have an Ivy degree, and was self taught in the computing field, so I know the value of both. In fact, I feel that being self-taught can be a distinct advantage, because one's thinking might not be as constrained as it would be with a formal education.
Yet, as an employer (running software companies), I always started my basic requirements for all positions, even front-office support type positions, with a requirement for a four-year degree or commensurate experience. I have occasionally used the "commensurate experience" exception, and was well rewarded with excellent employees, but the hurdle was high.
Requiring a degree gave me two things as an employer. First, I knew that the applicant had passed the admissions filter and had demonstrated some ability to think and complete work over a period of years. Yes, it is VERY imperfect, but it is something. Second, an education, especially a liberal arts education which we strongly preferred, can dramatically extend your ability to think in different ways; the student should have been systematically exposed to many more modes of thinking than are encountered in ordinary life. All too often this means nothing, and I must still evaluate each case, but my odds are much improved over the pool of the un-degreed.
The next thing I do with all applicants is to read their writing and resumes as a work product unto itself. How well are they doing the task at hand (of applying for a job)?
You, unfortunately, would have already failed this screening, even with a degree. Your third sentence jumped out and hit me over the head with the fact that you don't know the difference between possessive and plural, or between "there" and "their", and these are repeated errors. It is not merely being a 'grammar-nazi'. How you communicate matters -- do you expect the computer or someone else to debug your code? You are asking them to do it with your writing.
I would have to ask two questions: First, if you are this careless or uneducated with your primary language of communication, how careful or educated will you be with a computer language? Second, I will have to worry about every memo leaving your desk making my organization look questionable? Every good thinker I know uses English as a primary tool, does it well, and immediately recognizes the difference in those that do and do not.
Moreover, I would need to see more than just 'I'm so much better than Jack and Joe with their degrees'. I see good enthusiasm and 'get it done' attitude, but I'd need to see more evidence of precision, rigor and forethought in your work (not that it doesn't exist, but it is not evident here).
If you want to do well being hired by others, I'd suggest getting a good degree, and being absolutely ruthless with your instructors. Accept nothing less than clear, rigorous instruction. Seek out the instructors others call tough. You are paying for an education -- demand the best. Because, frankly, the degree itself isn't worth crap -- there are plenty of degreed people I wouldn't hire to sweep the floors.
Alternatively, start your own company. That way, you can hire yourself without a degree, and the people that hire you (your customers) will be more focused on what you can do for them now than what you did in the past. But again, be rigorous -- ask the question "would you hire yourself?", and do whatever it takes to answer that question "Yes" before you start.
This work on different inputs and 'fly by wire' controls is interesting. For it to really work, the design must retain at least two things (aside from the obvious general usability attributes).
First, the key is that the controls respond to fine modulations and provide feedback. Subtle changes in pressure or position must be recognized. Racecars, in which most classes prohibit 'fly-by-wire' systems, are often designed with variable ratio steering and throttle linkages to provide for subtle inputs where it matters most. Fly-by-wire controls as you are designing have the opportunity for even more interesting input-output mapping.
Feedback is also important. Fly-by-wire controls on commercial and military aircraft employ artificial feedback to replace that lost from manual controls. E.g., the stick-shaker simulates the shaking that hydraulic controls feedback from the wing control surfaces starting to flutter as a plane approches a stall condition. The goal is for the artificial system to feel natural.
Second, do NOT succumb to the temptation to overload multiple systems onto one control. It might seem simpler to have one stick, push forward for throttle, and back for brake, but that eliminates the possibility of using both at once. In ordinary daily driving, it might seem that this is silly, but it is actually a critical skill/capability in higher performance driving or emergency situations. To quote Mario Andretti, "the brakes aren't for stopping, they're for balancing the car", and you DO need them both at once.
The key isn't combining controls or removing control from the driver. The key is allowing the driver to do things easier -- reduce driver workload so (s)he can concentrate on the items that matter.
Example 1: Paddle shifters on the steering wheel are better than an H-pattern shifter on the floor and a clutch. Manually operating the clutch added nothing to the driver's control of the car, nor did moving the hand to the shift lever. The paddle shifter reduces it to its essence -- change gears exactly when you want, with a minimum of effort.
Example 2: Displays on the steering wheel are becoming common in racecars, and Heads Up Displays are common in aircraft and are now appearing in high-end road cars like the Corvette Z06. These do not take away information, they just put it where it is easy to see.
One cautionary tale, I saw an article about a guy who won several times the world championship in video game auto rally competition (not sure which one). His videos looked impressive, and he got sponsorship to run a real rally car in British competition. The transition to real world driving was in many ways remarkably quick, but quite rough (he stuffed it into an embankment in the first few days). He had many elements of driving far advanced for his experience, but the 'feel' for the racecar's behavior wasn't there.
I'll be very interested to see what sorts of developments you make. I wish you could reveal more detail.
As I was writing a summary of this situation to send to my friends and family who don't read the tech sites, I had an uneasy feeling, as if it wasn't quite right to send out this alarm. It nagged at me for several hours.
Finally, I got it -- this summary I sent had an uncanny resemblance to the old Virus Hoax Emails that we had to repeatedly debunk in the late 90s. You know, those alarming emails warning everyone to not open any.JPG or.GIF files because they contained viruses that would do all sorts of evil things to your computer, and to pass on the warning. We reassured everyone that this was just a hoax, and that data files don't contain code, etc...
Yet, all along, behind the scenes, was lurking this.WMF vulnerability...
Ironic, that this sorta makes liars of us all.
I just shake my head, and wonder why those dolts at Microsoft don't understand the basic concept of separating code, user data, system config data and user settings.
"Staying technologically superior is also a form of corporate welfare.... We could have done just as much damage dropping $10 million worth of diesel fuel and nitrate in 50 gallon drums from cargo planes."
Get a clue about warfare before you speak. I detest corporate welfare as much as anyone, and I hold a very low opinion of the current administration, but precision guided munitions are NOT about corporate welfare.
The ability to put munitions exactly on a target is an enormous advance. Taking out a specific military target now requires only one or two rounds. The size of the explosive can also be greatly reduced, and is sometimes even eliminated -- they have actually used precision guided concrete 'bombs' to take out targets in sensitive or populated areas. Precision munitions are not about "how many people they can accurately kill", but about how few non-targeted people and our soldiers get killed while accurately taking out a target. 'Collateral damage' is now a newsworthy exception instead of a usual occurrence.
In contrast, old-style 'cheap' bombing was far from cheap, even when the costs of the precision guidance systems are counted. What is now done with a single 500# precision-guided bomb used to take multiple plane-loads of 2000# bombs, and even then have a lower probability of actually destroying the target. More weapons have to be made, transported and flown to the target (area), more flyers are put at risk, more collateral damage is done, and more civilians are killed.
The result of what you are saying is that you would rather spend a lot more money and kill a lot more civilians just to avoid paying a profit to a few corporations. Oh, yes, and they would make a profit anyway making the old dumb bombs.
Moving on to your claim that terrorism is somehow connected to policy; this is absurd. Terrorists are hate-mongers, pure and simple, and they just use the current political situation as an excuse. If you change what they profess to hate today, they'll find something else to hate tomorrow.
If terrorism was actually about policy, they'd attack institutions and infrastructure that implemented the policy. Refer to the French Resistance in WWII; they attacked things to make life inconvenient to the occupying Axis forces and administrators, not civilians (and it was all plenty brutal). In contrast, these terrorists just attack civilians in a way that will make news. Do you actually think that sending suicide bombers to a wedding at a nice hotel in Jordan and killing children and the parents of the married couple actually has any real connection with a POLICY?
Right, the article did say that. However, I was arguing in the smaller context of the parent post, which said that Microsoft et al."... have A LOT MORE money to take you to court with and ruin your life...", implying that they should not have to respond to a court order either.
I should have put it in better context. I do not think that the companies should have to reveal the identities on any random request, but that they should have to respond to a proper court.
We completely agree -- that is what the courts are for. The ISP should not reveal identities at the requests of a citizen, corporation, or lawyer. But, when a court has become convinced that the case has sufficient merit to subponea the identity information, they should reveal it. I'm only arguing against the premise that he court is wrong and should not have the power to compel release of the identity.
I also completely agree that as an ISP, I would not want to be in the business of deciding merit of the cases. It is a completely lose-lose situation, as well as being costly and unprofitable. This is also why we cannot expect to see them resisting court orders.
Cut it out with the straw man arguments. Just because some libel or slander does not cause damage, does not mean that none causes damage.
Also, get your facts straight. The Catholic church may still be standing, but it has been very damaged. It is closing many churches in Massachusetts for lack of funds, and is making major changes in how it works (a good thing IMHO). I also haven't noticed Michael Jackson exxactly seeking publicity the last few years (not a bad thing either, but you can't argue that the charges had no effect).
Just because your in-laws got off scot-free with molesting his kids does not make it right. It also would not make it right for me to find your identity and falsely accuse you.
More generally, it is important that we live in a society where there is a basis for trust. If falsehoods are the generally expected, then we must doubt and verify every statement, and the cost and time required for everything increases, from business to romance.
And NO, I am not asserting that by laws will automatically make everyone truthful. Only that liars and scammers need to be marginalized, and that there is some critical threshold of ethical and trustworthy behavior below which any society falls at its peril.
I should be able to make any truthful or opinionated statement about a person, corporation or government anonymously. I have no love for Microsoft, the RIAA or their tactics.
However, when I make false statements that damage your business, livelihood or personal life, I should be held accountable. It should not matter whether I am attacking you as a private person, some celebrity, Microsoft, or the RIAA -- I should not be allowed to make damaging false assertions without being held to account -- especially if these damaging false assertions could be profitable to me.
Sure, a big company will have more money for lawyers to come after me, but they still must convince a judge that the assertions are false. As a small plaintiff, it is not that costly, and the presumption will be on the side of the small guy. Moreover, the truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel (written) or slander (spoken).
A rapidly rising problem in this area of anonymous online speech is stock scammers making false damaging blog and message board posts. They get it in their head that the stock should go down, or feel that they have been wronged, and they start making false accusations, and do so in groups, creating a nasty buzz. That will do nothing against giants like Microsoft, but can create a serious distraction and unavailability of capital for small companies recently gone public, and can cost people their jobs. Shouldn't these people at least have the threat of being exposed and having to answer for their statements?
Similarly, some cow-worker decides that you wronged them and wants to get back at you, so kludges up some false photos and email trails and makes sure your spouse/SO is made aware of it, damaging your home life. Shouldn't you be able to identify them and make them answer for it?
I like neither big government, big corporations, nor the excess power they can wield. But, I do not think that their potential power is sufficient reason to create a lawless zone on the Internet where anyone can libel with impunity.
Even if the gas pipeline control software was purchased, the articles and reasonable logic indicate that CIA put the bugs in the Soviet version, and not the general version. I don't see you producing a shred of evidence or even allegations to support your implication that they let the bugs spread generally, caused other explosions, deaths, and bankrupted the company. This is nothing more than inuendo.
Let's keep the argument on point. It is NOT about whether this is right or wrong, but that it does not qualify the US as terrorists. Hacking and sabatoge alone do not qualify you as a terrorist, any more than terrorism in the vicinity of a computer qualifies you as a hacker.
"That CIA gas plant explosion 'bug' is disgusting and has America == No.1 Terrorist written all over it if true."
I might as well say: "Idiots like you that corrupt the language are worse than terrorists."
Both are absurd exaggerations that have nothing to do with reality, and only degrade the ability of our language to carry meaning.
Get Real. Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to induce a state of terror in the general population, as a method intended to achieve political, religious or ideological goals.
The CIA were not using violence, they were attempting to cause stolen technology to fail.
The CIA were not targeting civilians. Moreover, AFAIK, not one person was even killed in the explosion, which happened in a very remote area, and the specific explosion was certianly not planned (they had no knowledge of or control over how the Soviets used the stolen technology).
The CIA were certainly neither attempting to induce a state of terror, not cause change by inducing a state of terror.
You want to oppose the US government? Great -- there are many good bases on which to do so. But please, before you speak up next time, get some facts, learn how to use the language, and THINK! You might then have a chance of convincing somebody of your point, instead of just annoying them with your ignorance.
The first three digit group is geographical, but only related to the area of the office where you APPLIED for the card. It has no real correlation to the location of your residence or of your birthplace.
The second two digit group is merely descended from an internal paper filing system; the system was run for decades without computers. No useful data here, not even on your race or gender (another bad internet rumor).
"Until governments foot the bill for all medical R&D and clinical testing, patents are a crucial part of the medical device & pharma industry."
I'm glad to see that you're not promoting government funding, even though the patent office is overburdened and sloppy. There are two things wrong with government funding.
1) Decisions about which products even get funded for the approval would be given to bureaucrats. Even if they were consistently knowledgable, they have no real pressure to get it right. At least today, the people who decide what gets funded have a personal stake in getting it right, whether it is their own careers or their own money.
2) It is NOT the government's money, it is YOUR AND MY MONEY!!! I do not want to pay more taxes so some bureaucrat can spend my money as he choses. Thanks, but I'll decide for myself whether I want to risk my money on getting medical devices approved, and in which funds or projects to invest.
" 1. Insurance. If the device fails to pass, then the insurance pays for it."
OK, and what insurance company will write that policy and at what price?
I'm sure some major specialist company would write such a policy, and be able to spread the risk in the reinsurance markets.
What would be the price of such an insurance policy on the approvals process? An established medical device maufacturer with a track record of dozens of approvals and an 80% success rate might be able to get inurance for 25% of the estimated cost of the approvals process. But a completely new company with no prior approvals attempting to get an approval on an implementation of an entirely new concept (i.e, not a variant of an existing treatment)? The cost of the insurance would approach the cost of the process, so the up front costs would almost double.
"
2. A group of companies get together to foot the bill."
Yes, this is often done. And, as a previous poster pointed out, without clear IP rights, even the inventor/owner of the new device won't invest in the approvals process. So, why would any other company or investor step up to fund a process, unless the IP was clearly protected and they had a clear participation in the future proceeds?
So, I don't see how either of these ideas get us way from patents or similar rights.
IANAL, but the way this would be done is a class action suit. This is an action in which one or a small group of plaintiffs represent the class of people who were damaged (physically or fiscally) by an illegal practice. When they win (or, more likely, a settlement is reached before trial), all the members of the class can either opt into the class and collect their share of the settlement, or opt out and leave open the option of suing on their own.
Class ation suits can start as separate plaintiffs filing similar suits and being combined, although it is often the case that each plaintiff/group is intending to lead the class. Then the lawyers and judges sort out which jurisdiction and which law firms will lead the class action.
The attorneys get paid out of the proceeds, and only if they win. Class actions ar quite expensive and risky to prosecute. Yes, you can subpoena evidence, but defendants will literally bury you in TONS of irrelevant evidence (think semitrailers of printouts) and their laywers manufacture endless BS argunents just to run up prosectution costs and reduce the likelihood that you'll find the key bits of evidence before the discovery deadlines. So, the potential settlement needs to be in the 7-9 figure range.
But that is the where power of numbers comes in. When you get ripped off for $20, it isn't even worth your time to pick up the phone to call a lawyer, much less her time to consider the case. But, when thousands get ripped off for the same $20, it makes sense to take up arms.
So, if you want your money back, get up off your butt and find an attorney that specializes in class actions, or one who can refer you. You would do us all a favor. In fact, there may be attorneys out there right now looking for representative plaintiffs.
"This will mean that banks will be forced to put their customers through more and more identification hoops than they already do. We will be inconvenienced even more and all because of the phishers. They are criminals like any other, and it's the governments responsibility to deal with them."
There is ALWAYS a tradeoff between security and convenience. I would happily tolerate a bit more inconvenience to have less worry about the wide variety of identity scams.
Perhaps you don't care enough about your money to be inconvenienced. I that case, you can leave it in an account I'll setup which will provide you with very convenient access to it (or whatever fraction is left after any unfortunate events, for which this custodian will in no circumstances be liable in any way)...
Sodium Vapor lights do indeed have a very narrow spectrum. They are also more economical than mercury and halogen lights. Yet mercury and halogen lights are indeed replacing sodium lights becuse the narrow spectrum is actually a hazard.
Low Pressure Sodium lights are almost completely monochromatic at 589nm, that characteristic yellow-orange color. High Pressure Spdium lights include some other elements (thus colors), but still have a very limited spectrum. The result is that it is almost impossible to see colors under these lights, for example the color of a car leaving a crime scene.
Oversimplifying, the retinas in our eyes have Cone Cells, and Rod Cells. The Cone Cells see color and are concentrated in the center of our vision, and so also give us high resolution. The Rod Cells see gray scale, are distributed, and have the ability to dark adapt to see in low light.
The spectrum of Sodium Vapor is insufficient to activate our Cone Cells. Yet the intensity of the light kills the ability of our Rod Cells to dark-adapt. So we are stuck with the low resolution of our Rods, with only their daytime photon-gathering ability, and orders of magnitude fewer photons than in daytime.
It is almost the worst possible combination, in some cases worse than a decent night sky. Sodium lighting has actually been shown to increase industrial accidents. So, though cheap to buy and run, sodium lights are frequently being replaced, unfortunatey for the astronomers.
I suggest that they abandon area lighting and just issue every citizen some good night vision gear (or tax credits for it). It would be much more fun that way.
This does not look like it is only about taxes, but also a protectionist bill for existing auctioneers.
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam."
If it was just taxes, I'd think that they woulnd't bother with the apprenticeship, test, etc.
Neither necessary nor sufficient
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In fact, I've seen "Knowledgeable_Staff_On_Good_Salary + No_Deadlines" produce the worst kind of quality possible -- no working product at all.
I will agree that ignorant staff will degrade or kill quality, poor pay doesn't help, but tight deadlines can cut either way.
The real key to quality products of any type is:
1) deciding what you want to build, and deciding exactly (i.e., good specs);
2) deciding how you want to build it, and deciding exactly (i.e., good architecture);
3) ensuring that these two elements are matched to the capabilities of your team and budget (e.g., don't try to cram all the R3 featuers into R1); and
4) to create feeedback loops throughout the process to check that you are doing what you think you are doing (e.g., peer code review, pair programming, data acquisition and recording in manufacturing processes). Testing should be merely a "double check".
With these steps, and especially ensuring that the demands are only a bit beyond the capabilities of the team, even a basically competent team on modest pay can produce great things in short times.
Without adequate planning, deadlines and QA, the most brilliant, high-paid teams with no deadlines will produce crap, if they produce anything at all. As Sun Tsu said: 'every battle is won before it's fought'.
Uh, so who's the customer of unpaid volunteer OSS coders?
Their customers are the people they hope will use their OSS software, the same as the customers of commercial products (sometimes literally the same, when OSS and commercial products compete directly).
Customers give time and effort as well as money. This includes the time to figure out how to install the software and how to integrate it into the work or play they want to do.
We must give them the most value we can for BOTH their money and their time and effort. The customers' time and frustration are more important than the price, whether ot not the product is free. Frustrate a customer (potential user), and they won't use your stuff. Make their life easier and they will use it. Make their life a lot easier and they'll tell ther friends.
The ideal product is free, installs instantly and takes zero time to learn (by utilizing knowledge the user already has, and making perfect assumptions about what to hide, default settings, etc.). Of course, real products will never acieve this ideal, but we must approach it as best we can.
The goal is the same, regardless of the product or situation. We want to make it so that as many people as possible find our product useful. This is what it takes to earn the satisfaction and rewards of a job well done, whether commercial or OSS.
This is a core problem of our industry, and the initial responses highlight it. They just try to talk about how people *should* learn things, and try to bend the analogy.
For the true analogy, look at the actual history of cars. Drivers were hired along with the car not only because the owners were rich, but because a car requried great skill to just operate with some modicum of safety. The engine was started with a crank, which could break your arm if you weren't careful. Almost every engine parameter had to be continually adjusted by hand. The choke had to be set and adjusted. The spark advance adjustment was typically on the steering wheel and needed continual twiddling to keep the engine running right. There was no power assist on anything.
Today, how many drivers (other than mechanics and enthusiasts) even know about the choke and the spark advance, much less how they work? And how popular are cars now compared to 100 years ago?
Technologists who ignore this are fools, and there are too many of them. And, just because you always gt more out of something by knowing more about it, does not mean that we should require such knowledge just for basic use. Believe it or not, some people have other things to do with their lives, and care about other stuff.
To paraphrase Kennedy: Ask not what your customer can do for you, ask what you can do for your customer.
To spell it out: do not ask your customer to learn your machine so she can use your (confusing and clunky) interface, ask how you can make it easier, smoother and safer for your customer to use your product.
He's just taken a half-step across the wrong line. If he ever finishes that step and actually lobs one across a border, that'll be the end of it. Period.
IIRC, the US has mutual protection pacts with Japan and S Korea, which basically means that we treat an attack on them as an attack on the US. Obviously, we could react a bit more mildly if we chose, but I wouldn't expect the current administration to do so. More likely, they're just itching for an excuse to take out NK and be done with the problem.
Decisions would be made before any NK missile even landed. Ever read what a Trident sub can do? 24 5-warhead missiles, with each warhead yielding 100-475 KT (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ~20KT each). Can you say 'smoking ruins in 15 minutes'? Or, how about a few dozen cruise milssiles with 500# conventional warheads coming in whatever window we choose?
He is playing as dangerous and stupid game as there is, and he cannot win. Does he really think that one or two nukes on a primitive missile will buy him anything? All he can do is make a mess for everyone. I really pity the poor people who are born into that miserable parody of a country. They have no chance.
The situation is neither as good nor as bad as some imply. As others have noted, there were times at the end of the 19th century when physicists thought they were at the end of discovery. People have proclaimed that the patent office should close because everything has been invented (good idea, wrong reason). At the beginning of he 1990s, some academic made a stir with a book entitled "The End of History" (IIRC, it was not long before the 1st Iraq war). Obviously, this is no more the end of software development than the end of any of those processes.
However, that said, things are now very different than they were in the last two decades.
For a time after any new technology becomes practical, those who build and market it can charge based upon VALUE DELIVERED. The proposition is basically that "Your current process now costs $X per year; with our new widget, it will cost only 20% of $X, and our widget costs only [insert large sum aprox=$X]. Every day you delay is a day you are not competing as well as you could". Nevermind that it only costs 0.001% of $X to develop and produce the widget, the customers are happy to pay because of the advantage it brings. Outrageous profits result.
Later, almost everyone already has the widget, or something like it. The productivity and cost gains of the process are already assumed and the new $X is now 20% of the old $X, so it is harder for a vendor to create a benefit to the customer. With a wide set of widget vendors out there, the customer can also push back on the price. The price fall to something closely related to COST TO PRODUCE.
This inevitable shift from an industry based on VALUE DELIVERED to one based on COST TO PRODUCE does not mean the industry is dead, but it can sure feel that way. The leadership of the 'genius shops' gives way to leadership of efficient business managers, who come up with incremental improvements and manage costs well.
This article is simply about finding a profitable niche (Single Idea, Collaborate), building stuff that can sell well (Disappear, Simplify, Comply), and managing the process tightly (Release). Software is now like any other business; good profits are available, but the easy fortunes have already been made.
Microsoft's early mission statement was "A computer on every desk, running Microsoft software".
Their current mission statement is: "To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential."
Before October 2002, it was "To empower people through great software -- any time, any place, and on any device."
The early mission satement was far better, and more representative of how they actully do business. If you were an employee, which statement gives you the most clear goals? If you were an investor, which company's stock would you buy? Of course, there's no mention of integrity, quality, ethics, but nevermind that...
Back to the topic, has anyone seen any real changes in behavior (not just some analyst saying they want to be nicer)?
Slashdot Mirror
"THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"
Perhaps they need to be reminded to read that legend, which appears on every Federal Reserve Note.
IANAL, but I seem to recall that if one refuses payment or partial payment of a debt, then they are abandoning and voiding the debt. If they refuse payment in legal tender, you are 'off the hook'. If you offer a trained clerk a partial payment in cash, and they ask for full payment, see what happens when you ask "are you refusing my payment?"...
As a practical matter with hotels, car rentals, etc, they may require a huge deposit on cash transactions, with the reasoning that they wouldn't be able to come after you later if you trashed the room or the car. They might also require a ccard as ID, but they are still requied to take cash as payment.
Private companies are also allowed to set policies of not accpeting large quantities of small denominations, or not making change for large bills, but I'm not sure that they can completely refuse appropriate amounts of cash.
IMO, even if it is legal, it wouldnt' be right.
You'll get no argument from me on all the stupid things that university graduates can do. Merely having a degree does not make you smart, and I've already said that. However, just because some people with degrees do stupid things, does not mean that all university grads are stupid.
While you say that "so far it works", of your avoiding degrees, you also clearly express that you are "fedup with the kind of bullshit approach to hiring ", and make many arguments that it is a unreasonable to require a degree. If your approach actually worked well, I don't think you would express so much resentment. So, I think there is a problem there.
I also agree that most hiring sucks, and that the hiring people who didn't bother to look at your work were not doing their jobs. I see examining someone's work as a critical part of hiring -- it is of course the best indication of what they can do for my company.
Of course, I also see using language as a critical part of everyone's work at my company, even for the programmer. A programmer's job is more than coding. He or she must also communicate with the rest of the team, and with customers. I'm not the kind of manager that sticks the programmers in a hole. I want them to directly hear what the customer wants, and they must represent us well to give the customer confidence. (Of course, if I did have a programmer who spoke and wrote poorly, I would tend to keep them in the back.) So, I judge the programmer by BOTH his code and his language.
In using language, it is more than just a question of "Did you understand what I tried to say? Then I succeeded.". You need to consider your listener or reader. Can she immediately understand your point, or must she waste energy and time being distracted by your noise? If English is your second language, that is great, since you use it well for a non-native speaker, but trying to say that poor language doesn't matter is a mistake (when I have to use a second language, I don't try to make my lack of skill seem like a good thing).
You might compare bad use of language to the programmer you mentioned who wrote the "100 line long switch which does the same in every case as well as in the default [with] perfect in grammar and spelling". He could say the same thing about his code as you do about your language. He would say "Did the computer execute the code and produce the correct result? Then I succeeded!". But we would both say that this code executes more slowly, takes more resources, is far more difficult to maintain, etc.
In short, both bad uses of language degrade the results. Why not be good at both?
And seriously, if not having a degree is really working for you, then why waste time and effort on the resentment? If it is not working for you, then why not get one? The worst that happens is that you learn something.
It's been fun sparring with you!
You have a point that a degree, even from an Ivy League institution, does not automatically confer common sense, an ability to solve problems in the real world in real time, or even a guarantee that the person knows how to think well.
It is also sadly the case that many schools and so-called professors are a complete waste of time (and that is being generous).
I also think that most HR people and recruiters suck -- they don't really understand the real requirements, and just match lists of requirements and capabilities (and usually badly at that).
I have an Ivy degree, and was self taught in the computing field, so I know the value of both. In fact, I feel that being self-taught can be a distinct advantage, because one's thinking might not be as constrained as it would be with a formal education.
Yet, as an employer (running software companies), I always started my basic requirements for all positions, even front-office support type positions, with a requirement for a four-year degree or commensurate experience. I have occasionally used the "commensurate experience" exception, and was well rewarded with excellent employees, but the hurdle was high.
Requiring a degree gave me two things as an employer. First, I knew that the applicant had passed the admissions filter and had demonstrated some ability to think and complete work over a period of years. Yes, it is VERY imperfect, but it is something. Second, an education, especially a liberal arts education which we strongly preferred, can dramatically extend your ability to think in different ways; the student should have been systematically exposed to many more modes of thinking than are encountered in ordinary life. All too often this means nothing, and I must still evaluate each case, but my odds are much improved over the pool of the un-degreed.
The next thing I do with all applicants is to read their writing and resumes as a work product unto itself. How well are they doing the task at hand (of applying for a job)?
You, unfortunately, would have already failed this screening, even with a degree. Your third sentence jumped out and hit me over the head with the fact that you don't know the difference between possessive and plural, or between "there" and "their", and these are repeated errors. It is not merely being a 'grammar-nazi'. How you communicate matters -- do you expect the computer or someone else to debug your code? You are asking them to do it with your writing.
I would have to ask two questions: First, if you are this careless or uneducated with your primary language of communication, how careful or educated will you be with a computer language? Second, I will have to worry about every memo leaving your desk making my organization look questionable? Every good thinker I know uses English as a primary tool, does it well, and immediately recognizes the difference in those that do and do not.
Moreover, I would need to see more than just 'I'm so much better than Jack and Joe with their degrees'. I see good enthusiasm and 'get it done' attitude, but I'd need to see more evidence of precision, rigor and forethought in your work (not that it doesn't exist, but it is not evident here).
If you want to do well being hired by others, I'd suggest getting a good degree, and being absolutely ruthless with your instructors. Accept nothing less than clear, rigorous instruction. Seek out the instructors others call tough. You are paying for an education -- demand the best. Because, frankly, the degree itself isn't worth crap -- there are plenty of degreed people I wouldn't hire to sweep the floors.
Alternatively, start your own company. That way, you can hire yourself without a degree, and the people that hire you (your customers) will be more focused on what you can do for them now than what you did in the past. But again, be rigorous -- ask the question "would you hire yourself?", and do whatever it takes to answer that question "Yes" before you start.
Good luck in whatever path you choose.
This work on different inputs and 'fly by wire' controls is interesting. For it to really work, the design must retain at least two things (aside from the obvious general usability attributes).
First, the key is that the controls respond to fine modulations and provide feedback. Subtle changes in pressure or position must be recognized. Racecars, in which most classes prohibit 'fly-by-wire' systems, are often designed with variable ratio steering and throttle linkages to provide for subtle inputs where it matters most. Fly-by-wire controls as you are designing have the opportunity for even more interesting input-output mapping.
Feedback is also important. Fly-by-wire controls on commercial and military aircraft employ artificial feedback to replace that lost from manual controls. E.g., the stick-shaker simulates the shaking that hydraulic controls feedback from the wing control surfaces starting to flutter as a plane approches a stall condition. The goal is for the artificial system to feel natural.
Second, do NOT succumb to the temptation to overload multiple systems onto one control. It might seem simpler to have one stick, push forward for throttle, and back for brake, but that eliminates the possibility of using both at once. In ordinary daily driving, it might seem that this is silly, but it is actually a critical skill/capability in higher performance driving or emergency situations. To quote Mario Andretti, "the brakes aren't for stopping, they're for balancing the car", and you DO need them both at once.
The key isn't combining controls or removing control from the driver. The key is allowing the driver to do things easier -- reduce driver workload so (s)he can concentrate on the items that matter.
Example 1: Paddle shifters on the steering wheel are better than an H-pattern shifter on the floor and a clutch. Manually operating the clutch added nothing to the driver's control of the car, nor did moving the hand to the shift lever. The paddle shifter reduces it to its essence -- change gears exactly when you want, with a minimum of effort.
Example 2: Displays on the steering wheel are becoming common in racecars, and Heads Up Displays are common in aircraft and are now appearing in high-end road cars like the Corvette Z06. These do not take away information, they just put it where it is easy to see.
One cautionary tale, I saw an article about a guy who won several times the world championship in video game auto rally competition (not sure which one). His videos looked impressive, and he got sponsorship to run a real rally car in British competition. The transition to real world driving was in many ways remarkably quick, but quite rough (he stuffed it into an embankment in the first few days). He had many elements of driving far advanced for his experience, but the 'feel' for the racecar's behavior wasn't there.
I'll be very interested to see what sorts of developments you make. I wish you could reveal more detail.
As I was writing a summary of this situation to send to my friends and family who don't read the tech sites, I had an uneasy feeling, as if it wasn't quite right to send out this alarm. It nagged at me for several hours.
.JPG or .GIF files because they contained viruses that would do all sorts of evil things to your computer, and to pass on the warning. We reassured everyone that this was just a hoax, and that data files don't contain code, etc...
.WMF vulnerability...
Finally, I got it -- this summary I sent had an uncanny resemblance to the old Virus Hoax Emails that we had to repeatedly debunk in the late 90s. You know, those alarming emails warning everyone to not open any
Yet, all along, behind the scenes, was lurking this
Ironic, that this sorta makes liars of us all.
I just shake my head, and wonder why those dolts at Microsoft don't understand the basic concept of separating code, user data, system config data and user settings.
"Staying technologically superior is also a form of corporate welfare. ... We could have done just as much damage dropping $10 million worth of diesel fuel and nitrate in 50 gallon drums from cargo planes."
Get a clue about warfare before you speak. I detest corporate welfare as much as anyone, and I hold a very low opinion of the current administration, but precision guided munitions are NOT about corporate welfare.
The ability to put munitions exactly on a target is an enormous advance. Taking out a specific military target now requires only one or two rounds. The size of the explosive can also be greatly reduced, and is sometimes even eliminated -- they have actually used precision guided concrete 'bombs' to take out targets in sensitive or populated areas. Precision munitions are not about "how many people they can accurately kill", but about how few non-targeted people and our soldiers get killed while accurately taking out a target. 'Collateral damage' is now a newsworthy exception instead of a usual occurrence.
In contrast, old-style 'cheap' bombing was far from cheap, even when the costs of the precision guidance systems are counted. What is now done with a single 500# precision-guided bomb used to take multiple plane-loads of 2000# bombs, and even then have a lower probability of actually destroying the target. More weapons have to be made, transported and flown to the target (area), more flyers are put at risk, more collateral damage is done, and more civilians are killed.
The result of what you are saying is that you would rather spend a lot more money and kill a lot more civilians just to avoid paying a profit to a few corporations. Oh, yes, and they would make a profit anyway making the old dumb bombs.
Moving on to your claim that terrorism is somehow connected to policy; this is absurd. Terrorists are hate-mongers, pure and simple, and they just use the current political situation as an excuse. If you change what they profess to hate today, they'll find something else to hate tomorrow.
If terrorism was actually about policy, they'd attack institutions and infrastructure that implemented the policy. Refer to the French Resistance in WWII; they attacked things to make life inconvenient to the occupying Axis forces and administrators, not civilians (and it was all plenty brutal). In contrast, these terrorists just attack civilians in a way that will make news. Do you actually think that sending suicide bombers to a wedding at a nice hotel in Jordan and killing children and the parents of the married couple actually has any real connection with a POLICY?
Right, the article did say that. However, I was arguing in the smaller context of the parent post, which said that Microsoft et al." ... have A LOT MORE money to take you to court with and ruin your life...", implying that they should not have to respond to a court order either.
I should have put it in better context. I do not think that the companies should have to reveal the identities on any random request, but that they should have to respond to a proper court.
We completely agree -- that is what the courts are for. The ISP should not reveal identities at the requests of a citizen, corporation, or lawyer. But, when a court has become convinced that the case has sufficient merit to subponea the identity information, they should reveal it. I'm only arguing against the premise that he court is wrong and should not have the power to compel release of the identity.
I also completely agree that as an ISP, I would not want to be in the business of deciding merit of the cases. It is a completely lose-lose situation, as well as being costly and unprofitable. This is also why we cannot expect to see them resisting court orders.
Cut it out with the straw man arguments. Just because some libel or slander does not cause damage, does not mean that none causes damage.
Also, get your facts straight. The Catholic church may still be standing, but it has been very damaged. It is closing many churches in Massachusetts for lack of funds, and is making major changes in how it works (a good thing IMHO). I also haven't noticed Michael Jackson exxactly seeking publicity the last few years (not a bad thing either, but you can't argue that the charges had no effect).
Just because your in-laws got off scot-free with molesting his kids does not make it right. It also would not make it right for me to find your identity and falsely accuse you.
More generally, it is important that we live in a society where there is a basis for trust. If falsehoods are the generally expected, then we must doubt and verify every statement, and the cost and time required for everything increases, from business to romance.
And NO, I am not asserting that by laws will automatically make everyone truthful. Only that liars and scammers need to be marginalized, and that there is some critical threshold of ethical and trustworthy behavior below which any society falls at its peril.
Big or little does not change the rights.
I should be able to make any truthful or opinionated statement about a person, corporation or government anonymously. I have no love for Microsoft, the RIAA or their tactics.
However, when I make false statements that damage your business, livelihood or personal life, I should be held accountable. It should not matter whether I am attacking you as a private person, some celebrity, Microsoft, or the RIAA -- I should not be allowed to make damaging false assertions without being held to account -- especially if these damaging false assertions could be profitable to me.
Sure, a big company will have more money for lawyers to come after me, but they still must convince a judge that the assertions are false. As a small plaintiff, it is not that costly, and the presumption will be on the side of the small guy. Moreover, the truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel (written) or slander (spoken).
A rapidly rising problem in this area of anonymous online speech is stock scammers making false damaging blog and message board posts. They get it in their head that the stock should go down, or feel that they have been wronged, and they start making false accusations, and do so in groups, creating a nasty buzz. That will do nothing against giants like Microsoft, but can create a serious distraction and unavailability of capital for small companies recently gone public, and can cost people their jobs. Shouldn't these people at least have the threat of being exposed and having to answer for their statements?
Similarly, some cow-worker decides that you wronged them and wants to get back at you, so kludges up some false photos and email trails and makes sure your spouse/SO is made aware of it, damaging your home life. Shouldn't you be able to identify them and make them answer for it?
I like neither big government, big corporations, nor the excess power they can wield. But, I do not think that their potential power is sufficient reason to create a lawless zone on the Internet where anyone can libel with impunity.
Other more authoratative books and articles indicate that the software was stolen. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier
and
http://bmonday.com/archive/2004/02/27/583.aspx
Even if the gas pipeline control software was purchased, the articles and reasonable logic indicate that CIA put the bugs in the Soviet version, and not the general version. I don't see you producing a shred of evidence or even allegations to support your implication that they let the bugs spread generally, caused other explosions, deaths, and bankrupted the company. This is nothing more than inuendo.
Let's keep the argument on point. It is NOT about whether this is right or wrong, but that it does not qualify the US as terrorists. Hacking and sabatoge alone do not qualify you as a terrorist, any more than terrorism in the vicinity of a computer qualifies you as a hacker.
"That CIA gas plant explosion 'bug' is disgusting and has America == No.1 Terrorist written all over it if true."
I might as well say: "Idiots like you that corrupt the language are worse than terrorists."
Both are absurd exaggerations that have nothing to do with reality, and only degrade the ability of our language to carry meaning.
Get Real. Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence against civilians in order to induce a state of terror in the general population, as a method intended to achieve political, religious or ideological goals.
The CIA were not using violence, they were attempting to cause stolen technology to fail.
The CIA were not targeting civilians. Moreover, AFAIK, not one person was even killed in the explosion, which happened in a very remote area, and the specific explosion was certianly not planned (they had no knowledge of or control over how the Soviets used the stolen technology).
The CIA were certainly neither attempting to induce a state of terror, not cause change by inducing a state of terror.
You want to oppose the US government? Great -- there are many good bases on which to do so. But please, before you speak up next time, get some facts, learn how to use the language, and THINK! You might then have a chance of convincing somebody of your point, instead of just annoying them with your ignorance.
...can be found here.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html
The first three digit group is geographical, but only related to the area of the office where you APPLIED for the card. It has no real correlation to the location of your residence or of your birthplace.
The second two digit group is merely descended from an internal paper filing system; the system was run for decades without computers. No useful data here, not even on your race or gender (another bad internet rumor).
"Until governments foot the bill for all medical R&D and clinical testing, patents are a crucial part of the medical device & pharma industry."
I'm glad to see that you're not promoting government funding, even though the patent office is overburdened and sloppy. There are two things wrong with government funding.
1) Decisions about which products even get funded for the approval would be given to bureaucrats. Even if they were consistently knowledgable, they have no real pressure to get it right. At least today, the people who decide what gets funded have a personal stake in getting it right, whether it is their own careers or their own money.
2) It is NOT the government's money, it is YOUR AND MY MONEY!!! I do not want to pay more taxes so some bureaucrat can spend my money as he choses. Thanks, but I'll decide for myself whether I want to risk my money on getting medical devices approved, and in which funds or projects to invest.
" 1. Insurance. If the device fails to pass, then the insurance pays for it."
OK, and what insurance company will write that policy and at what price?
I'm sure some major specialist company would write such a policy, and be able to spread the risk in the reinsurance markets.
What would be the price of such an insurance policy on the approvals process? An established medical device maufacturer with a track record of dozens of approvals and an 80% success rate might be able to get inurance for 25% of the estimated cost of the approvals process. But a completely new company with no prior approvals attempting to get an approval on an implementation of an entirely new concept (i.e, not a variant of an existing treatment)? The cost of the insurance would approach the cost of the process, so the up front costs would almost double.
" 2. A group of companies get together to foot the bill."
Yes, this is often done. And, as a previous poster pointed out, without clear IP rights, even the inventor/owner of the new device won't invest in the approvals process. So, why would any other company or investor step up to fund a process, unless the IP was clearly protected and they had a clear participation in the future proceeds?
So, I don't see how either of these ideas get us way from patents or similar rights.
IANAL, but the way this would be done is a class action suit. This is an action in which one or a small group of plaintiffs represent the class of people who were damaged (physically or fiscally) by an illegal practice. When they win (or, more likely, a settlement is reached before trial), all the members of the class can either opt into the class and collect their share of the settlement, or opt out and leave open the option of suing on their own.
Class ation suits can start as separate plaintiffs filing similar suits and being combined, although it is often the case that each plaintiff/group is intending to lead the class. Then the lawyers and judges sort out which jurisdiction and which law firms will lead the class action.
The attorneys get paid out of the proceeds, and only if they win. Class actions ar quite expensive and risky to prosecute. Yes, you can subpoena evidence, but defendants will literally bury you in TONS of irrelevant evidence (think semitrailers of printouts) and their laywers manufacture endless BS argunents just to run up prosectution costs and reduce the likelihood that you'll find the key bits of evidence before the discovery deadlines. So, the potential settlement needs to be in the 7-9 figure range.
But that is the where power of numbers comes in. When you get ripped off for $20, it isn't even worth your time to pick up the phone to call a lawyer, much less her time to consider the case. But, when thousands get ripped off for the same $20, it makes sense to take up arms.
So, if you want your money back, get up off your butt and find an attorney that specializes in class actions, or one who can refer you. You would do us all a favor. In fact, there may be attorneys out there right now looking for representative plaintiffs.
"This will mean that banks will be forced to put their customers through more and more identification hoops than they already do. We will be inconvenienced even more and all because of the phishers. They are criminals like any other, and it's the governments responsibility to deal with them."
There is ALWAYS a tradeoff between security and convenience. I would happily tolerate a bit more inconvenience to have less worry about the wide variety of identity scams.
Perhaps you don't care enough about your money to be inconvenienced. I that case, you can leave it in an account I'll setup which will provide you with very convenient access to it (or whatever fraction is left after any unfortunate events, for which this custodian will in no circumstances be liable in any way)...
Sodium Vapor lights do indeed have a very narrow spectrum. They are also more economical than mercury and halogen lights. Yet mercury and halogen lights are indeed replacing sodium lights becuse the narrow spectrum is actually a hazard.
Low Pressure Sodium lights are almost completely monochromatic at 589nm, that characteristic yellow-orange color. High Pressure Spdium lights include some other elements (thus colors), but still have a very limited spectrum. The result is that it is almost impossible to see colors under these lights, for example the color of a car leaving a crime scene.
Oversimplifying, the retinas in our eyes have Cone Cells, and Rod Cells. The Cone Cells see color and are concentrated in the center of our vision, and so also give us high resolution. The Rod Cells see gray scale, are distributed, and have the ability to dark adapt to see in low light.
The spectrum of Sodium Vapor is insufficient to activate our Cone Cells. Yet the intensity of the light kills the ability of our Rod Cells to dark-adapt. So we are stuck with the low resolution of our Rods, with only their daytime photon-gathering ability, and orders of magnitude fewer photons than in daytime.
It is almost the worst possible combination, in some cases worse than a decent night sky. Sodium lighting has actually been shown to increase industrial accidents. So, though cheap to buy and run, sodium lights are frequently being replaced, unfortunatey for the astronomers.
I suggest that they abandon area lighting and just issue every citizen some good night vision gear (or tax credits for it). It would be much more fun that way.
This does not look like it is only about taxes, but also a protectionist bill for existing auctioneers.
"Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam."
If it was just taxes, I'd think that they woulnd't bother with the apprenticeship, test, etc.
In fact, I've seen "Knowledgeable_Staff_On_Good_Salary + No_Deadlines" produce the worst kind of quality possible -- no working product at all.
I will agree that ignorant staff will degrade or kill quality, poor pay doesn't help, but tight deadlines can cut either way.
The real key to quality products of any type is:
1) deciding what you want to build, and deciding exactly (i.e., good specs);
2) deciding how you want to build it, and deciding exactly (i.e., good architecture);
3) ensuring that these two elements are matched to the capabilities of your team and budget (e.g., don't try to cram all the R3 featuers into R1); and
4) to create feeedback loops throughout the process to check that you are doing what you think you are doing (e.g., peer code review, pair programming, data acquisition and recording in manufacturing processes). Testing should be merely a "double check".
With these steps, and especially ensuring that the demands are only a bit beyond the capabilities of the team, even a basically competent team on modest pay can produce great things in short times.
Without adequate planning, deadlines and QA, the most brilliant, high-paid teams with no deadlines will produce crap, if they produce anything at all. As Sun Tsu said: 'every battle is won before it's fought'.
Uh, so who's the customer of unpaid volunteer OSS coders?
Their customers are the people they hope will use their OSS software, the same as the customers of commercial products (sometimes literally the same, when OSS and commercial products compete directly).
Customers give time and effort as well as money. This includes the time to figure out how to install the software and how to integrate it into the work or play they want to do.
We must give them the most value we can for BOTH their money and their time and effort. The customers' time and frustration are more important than the price, whether ot not the product is free. Frustrate a customer (potential user), and they won't use your stuff. Make their life easier and they will use it. Make their life a lot easier and they'll tell ther friends.
The ideal product is free, installs instantly and takes zero time to learn (by utilizing knowledge the user already has, and making perfect assumptions about what to hide, default settings, etc.). Of course, real products will never acieve this ideal, but we must approach it as best we can.
The goal is the same, regardless of the product or situation. We want to make it so that as many people as possible find our product useful. This is what it takes to earn the satisfaction and rewards of a job well done, whether commercial or OSS.
This is a core problem of our industry, and the initial responses highlight it. They just try to talk about how people *should* learn things, and try to bend the analogy.
For the true analogy, look at the actual history of cars. Drivers were hired along with the car not only because the owners were rich, but because a car requried great skill to just operate with some modicum of safety. The engine was started with a crank, which could break your arm if you weren't careful. Almost every engine parameter had to be continually adjusted by hand. The choke had to be set and adjusted. The spark advance adjustment was typically on the steering wheel and needed continual twiddling to keep the engine running right. There was no power assist on anything.
Today, how many drivers (other than mechanics and enthusiasts) even know about the choke and the spark advance, much less how they work? And how popular are cars now compared to 100 years ago?
Technologists who ignore this are fools, and there are too many of them. And, just because you always gt more out of something by knowing more about it, does not mean that we should require such knowledge just for basic use. Believe it or not, some people have other things to do with their lives, and care about other stuff.
To paraphrase Kennedy: Ask not what your customer can do for you, ask what you can do for your customer.
To spell it out: do not ask your customer to learn your machine so she can use your (confusing and clunky) interface, ask how you can make it easier, smoother and safer for your customer to use your product.
end rant.
He's just taken a half-step across the wrong line. If he ever finishes that step and actually lobs one across a border, that'll be the end of it. Period.
IIRC, the US has mutual protection pacts with Japan and S Korea, which basically means that we treat an attack on them as an attack on the US. Obviously, we could react a bit more mildly if we chose, but I wouldn't expect the current administration to do so. More likely, they're just itching for an excuse to take out NK and be done with the problem.
Decisions would be made before any NK missile even landed. Ever read what a Trident sub can do? 24 5-warhead missiles, with each warhead yielding 100-475 KT (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ~20KT each). Can you say 'smoking ruins in 15 minutes'? Or, how about a few dozen cruise milssiles with 500# conventional warheads coming in whatever window we choose?
He is playing as dangerous and stupid game as there is, and he cannot win. Does he really think that one or two nukes on a primitive missile will buy him anything? All he can do is make a mess for everyone. I really pity the poor people who are born into that miserable parody of a country. They have no chance.
The situation is neither as good nor as bad as some imply. As others have noted, there were times at the end of the 19th century when physicists thought they were at the end of discovery. People have proclaimed that the patent office should close because everything has been invented (good idea, wrong reason). At the beginning of he 1990s, some academic made a stir with a book entitled "The End of History" (IIRC, it was not long before the 1st Iraq war). Obviously, this is no more the end of software development than the end of any of those processes.
However, that said, things are now very different than they were in the last two decades.
For a time after any new technology becomes practical, those who build and market it can charge based upon VALUE DELIVERED. The proposition is basically that "Your current process now costs $X per year; with our new widget, it will cost only 20% of $X, and our widget costs only [insert large sum aprox=$X]. Every day you delay is a day you are not competing as well as you could". Nevermind that it only costs 0.001% of $X to develop and produce the widget, the customers are happy to pay because of the advantage it brings. Outrageous profits result.
Later, almost everyone already has the widget, or something like it. The productivity and cost gains of the process are already assumed and the new $X is now 20% of the old $X, so it is harder for a vendor to create a benefit to the customer. With a wide set of widget vendors out there, the customer can also push back on the price. The price fall to something closely related to COST TO PRODUCE.
This inevitable shift from an industry based on VALUE DELIVERED to one based on COST TO PRODUCE does not mean the industry is dead, but it can sure feel that way. The leadership of the 'genius shops' gives way to leadership of efficient business managers, who come up with incremental improvements and manage costs well.
This article is simply about finding a profitable niche (Single Idea, Collaborate), building stuff that can sell well (Disappear, Simplify, Comply), and managing the process tightly (Release). Software is now like any other business; good profits are available, but the easy fortunes have already been made.
Microsoft's early mission statement was "A computer on every desk, running Microsoft software".
Their current mission statement is: "To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential."
Before October 2002, it was "To empower people through great software -- any time, any place, and on any device."
The early mission satement was far better, and more representative of how they actully do business. If you were an employee, which statement gives you the most clear goals? If you were an investor, which company's stock would you buy? Of course, there's no mention of integrity, quality, ethics, but nevermind that...
Back to the topic, has anyone seen any real changes in behavior (not just some analyst saying they want to be nicer)?