I don't see this so much as "schools helping students break the law" as I see it as "a respected institution not allowing itself to be pushed around by some piece of crap assocation".
Perhaps MIT just has bigger balls and greater respect for their students than most other institutions do. Perhaps they feel that they do no agree with the idea of "unlawful" subpoenas. If that's the case, then the respect of an institution justifies spending money on litigation.
With respect also comes reputation. I wonder how much of this is MIT keeping her reputation of an educational institution that can't be messed with. I know that if I were an MIT alum and I knew that MIT were going to such lengths to protect her students, I'd be willing to give a lot more in donations.
Lastly, let's not forget that we're talking about MIT and not Podunk University. So far everyone has characterized MIT as just another institution, but I'm willing to bet that MIT has much more political power than people recognize. They have a long history of putting out the world's smartest people and many of them are in positions of power as well.
One thing you seemed to have left out, or understated, was Litigation. Litigation is not just "extra time"..it could drag on forever. The issue doesn't seem so clear cut because the 1998 DMCA act is a law but the rules by which MIT protects personal information is also a law (or rule).
The other issue is State vs Federal laws. Here in California it is legal to grow/smoke medicinal marijuana (or maybe that's just here in the bay area). However, this is illegal according to federal law. What happens is that local law enforcement treats these situations as legal while much cannot be done if the feds come in.
I'm curious. I understand that the RIAA can't get everyone and they are just trying to set a couple examples of people but could it be possible that file sharing is so pervasive that this is impossible?
I mean let's take a look at cable tv. Ever since cable broadband became available to me over 4 years ago I've been stealing free cable TV. I even steal free satellite now. I'm willing to bet there are thousands upon thousands of people who steal cable and/or satellite just like me. I'm sure at some time in the past some **AA organization tried to crack down on this..I believe they still are trying to crack down on it. But why has nothing happened to me? Could it be, perhaps, because this violation is difficult to enforce and just pervades society too well?
Ultimately I question what the **AA can accomplish. They're going to fine a couple people, and some people may even go to jail, but, from the looks of it, it doesn't look like anybody is going to quit file sharing any time soon. What seems more realistic is that I'm going to continue to hear about some ppl being fined, some more apps/networks getting shut down, newer apps/networks being created, more *AA bitching, and I'll continue to download free content when my heart so desires.
IANAL, but you mentioned that they issued a non-court approved subpoena (I could be wrong..this is my impression). I'm curious, but this sounds like something very very illegal.
Which rides on another good point... avoid processed and prepackaged foods!! All that crap catches up to you and eventually you'll get the Marie Calendars/Hot Pockets/Drumsticks software programmer body type! These foods are loaded with crap and the first step to looking better is ingesting healthier food that's fresh and doesn't have all those preservatives.
On this note, it is valuable to remember that both aerobic and anaerobic exercise is important. Aerobic exercise is good to get the blood flowing, heart pumping and gives a nice rush as a reward. Anaerobic exercise (lifting weights) is also important because it works out the muscles and using your muscles is great for a constant way to burn calories even when you're not working out. So try to switch off between the two.
I'm happy to buy CDs but I don't think the issue or solution is to just "give in and buy CDs".
First of all, to repeat what's been said, some people just want to purchase certain songs. I'd say that only 5% of the CDs I own have more than 3 songs (out of an average of 12 tracks) that I enjoy. There's something definitely wrong with purchasing a $12-15 and only getting 1-3 songs that I really like.
I did a check on CDUniverse for the Snatch soundtrack which I've been looking to buy and it's around $15 which is the same as it is on CDNow (Amazon). In the stores it is $16+tax. Now I know this is only one case, but it's a real-world example of how I would buy it if it were $12 but I'm unable to find it for that price.
In my case, it's not that I missed the paragraph but that the article seemed to have this feel of "Google sucks" and then, in the end, a small paragraph is devoted to an actual explanation of "ok, maybe it's because it's based on the actual content of the web" which to me represents the largest and most important point but doesn't get addressed.
I understand that the point of the article was to point out that Google's results are skewed but that's just stating the obvious. To me that's like saying "the majority of the website are porn". Google is the only search engine that gives me a good link result nearly 100% whether it's on a technically-related subject or not.
I'm not too familiar with driver programming and I'm not sure if the hardware can even support this, but wouldn't the obvious solution be to make the WiFi card APIs so that they do NOT expose the ability to modify/adjust the frequency they are operating at?
I'm not too experienced with the amount of power needed for the different loads of users out there but I imagine that if you're trying to support more users than your systems can handle, and you "can't" afford any more (or stronger) machines then you're simply in the wrong business (assuming the work has been architected decently). It just doesn't make sense to try to make the hardware accomodate your financial budgets plus operational requirements when it sometimes is impossible (or very very very difficult).
Languages versus Programming
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"I've been writing software for nigh on twenty years without it - why make life hard? "
I think there is a distinction here that needs to be brought up that I feel many programmers are unaware of. This is aimed for programmers who decided to go out there and learn Java who have never learned an OO language.
I think the goal of programmers should be to learn to code well. Having said that, those who then go on to "learn how to program java" from an instructional book are a bit mistaken in my humble opinion. There is a big distinction between language, which is a tool, and theory. The above analogy would be best explained by saying that you would want to learn how to write good stories and then picking up a bit on the english language. Good stories can be written in any language, pick one. It is the same for programming. Learning a language won't teach you to program well, it will just teach you to program in a different language.
Why learn OO? Let me take the analogy further: scripting languages really only allow you to write short stories. They do things similar to OO programming, but the scope of their use is quite limited and when you attempt to take them out of that realm they become difficult to use and unwieldy. An OO language allows you to write novels. They allow you to program larger programs, with a better underlying structure and more complexity.
Ah I see. Here's where the analogy of a writer does actually come in handy.:)
The difference is that writing, to me, is something that is pretty subjective when it comes to a good piece of work and a bad piece of work. Sure there are some recognized awards, but basically a large part of the writing involves creativity and less defined by logic and strict methods of criteria.
While I agree that a random kid in the phillipines COULD churn out some code, I would only agree if he were a random genius. Let me elaborate.
In this case I think we can compare it to mathematics. Anybody across the world can learn mathematics if thy somehow came across a book but most people can only learn advanced theories with some sort of higher education. Only a very few can learn it on their own.
This is the same for programming. It differs from writing (and from how you depicted programming) because much of good programming is not subjective. There is a pretty clear cut definition for clean, maintainable, efficient code. Not only that, there are also clear lines on which algorithms are better used in certain situations.
Sure the random kid in the phillipines can pick up a How to Program in 21 days and learn C/C++ or whatever. He can probably even learn about data structures and threading. But I doubt that he would be able to learn (without intense study) what the running time is for Quicksort or even how to implement it. I doubt he'd be able to learn which program run in log n time...etc etc etc.
He has as much ability to do this as he might be able to study the advanced points of mechanical engineering, architecture, quantum physics etc.
Computers are simply a tool but I think I've been talking about programming from the beginning. Basically I think you need to distinguish (which I've been trying to do) between the simple computer jobs (QA) and the more complex ones (those that take place in research centers at places like IBM, Google, etc).
I mean to take this concept to an extreme I'm sure some kid in the phillipines was making some logo program while Xerox was busy creating DOS.
Your analogy does hold up but I never said it didn't. I was saying how I don't see any special relations between programmers and writers versus programmers and plumbers or programmers and brick layers. In ANY profession, one who has greater skill will be in greater demand.
Theoretically, I agree that geographical location doesn't make a difference. But what you totally discount is the fact that the US has the greatest number of good universities and colleges. Sure people can leave the country, but the fact is that most of them stay here. So, because of this, a higher number of skilled workers are in America.
Sure some foreign institutions have merit but I'd be willing to bet that America still leads the world, by far, in the quality of advanced institutions.
I don't get the programmer vs. writer analogy. The only similarities you seem to show about programmers vs. writers are the ideas of supply and demand. But supply and demand apply to all jobs similarly. What's the distinction for programmers/writers?
Anyway, you're right about supply and demand. But what you didn't address is why some professions remain higher paid while others don't? The reason why is because some professions require a certain level of training, specialty and skill in order to execute them. Computers themselves might be cheap, but a good computer education isn't. Not everyone can pay private school fees (although there are some good public schools), and not everyone gets a masters or PhD either.
Based on this, I surmise that the "lower" IT jobs (easy stuff) will be exported because not much training is needed and they can be performed by Joe Schmoe who's read How to Become a 1337 Programmer in 21 Days. But, other higher skilled jobs like research divisions at IBM, Google, etc, will remain with the better trained programmers who tend to come from American universities.
I haven't RTFA but I'd like to throw in a little speculation.
Why would anyone want to buy this? Well why would anyone buy an Xbox or a PS2 when they have a Nintendo? That's a silly question. Simply put: 1) it might have better hardware, 2) it might have better games, 3) it might offer games that other consoles don't..etc etc etc. There are a million and 1 reasons why people would purchase this console and they are the same reasons why people purchased consoles in the past.
I agree that "logically" downloading games purely over the internet is probably not the wisest solution for your standard graphics-intensive game. Somehow, though, I don't think they're that stupid assuming that people will wait 1 whole day to download a new game. I'm goign to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course you can't trade games that you buy. It's called licensing. It applies to all games/software out there. It's not surprising.
Secondly, I'm sure that if your console "breaks down" your registration will allow you to get a second copy. This is only common sense.
Lastly, you ask, "Considering the amount of games available for my non-phatoms computers, why would I ever want to bother with it?" Have you ever owned a Nintendo? Xbox? Gamecube? Playtstation I/II? The same can be said for all these consoles yet they existed with varying levels of popularity. This question has been answered before.
That would be an interesting way for broadband to find its way into more american homes..selling internet connectivity with games. I wonder if they could somehow offer a prorated fee for only game usage.
Bye bye electricity == bye bye power? I don't know much about airplanes but I'm assuming every other navigational (including steering) as well as engine power is linked to electrical power. Even if they did cut the power they wouldn't go very far.
If you have too many leaders in one room trying to design a software product you're bound to never get anythign done.
I'd like to take an Ayn Rand position on it. I'd say that most developers do NOT need to know much about marketing except for the lead developers and architects who should be interacting WITH the marketing fellows to create a product that's both sound in architecture and marketing.
All the other developers that work underneath this technical leads don't need to be any wiser. That's what leaders are for.
I wish this were reality because it is the way it should be.
From what I've seen, the economic climate is one where programmers have much less a voice in these matters and if they aren't willing to kill themselves to make these deadlines then they might need to be looking for a new job.
It's also often the case that it's "your word against theirs" and no COO/CEO/big kahuna likes to throw away business. That's the business world. Just get what you can get done..even hack it, as long as we can give something to the client in 30 days. It's sad but often true.
I'm surprised some of these business even exist today (including the one I currently work at where this is the basic mantra).
I think you should go back and read the threads and responses.
You may not be talking about programming or even a scholastic education, but I was. And YOU responded to ME saying I was wrong. The point I made in my last response was that I was originally talking about education and school not life's lessons. You're the one who basically came to me and said "You're wrong" and using life's lessons as an example. Do you see the problem here?
I think you can learn to work in groups as well as learn other things without going to college. I wasn't speaking against that. Perhaps I should be a bit more specific when I originally stated "learn how to think critically".
The distinction lies in between what one would learn at a University and what one learns at a trade school. I will use programming for the sake of an example (and will admit that I'm largely generalizing things to make a point). In a trade school you will learn programming languages, syntax, object oriented programming in the quickest way that will prepare one to go out and find a job programming. Just working alone you might be able to pick up these skills but at best they are learned by either imitation, or by something akin to a "How to program in 21 days book".
At a University, you are exposed to (and even may participate in) research as well as the greater picture behind programming and what it is used for. Classes not only teach you about programming as a trade but as a theoretical science. Projects pose theories and questions that cause one to learn through critical thinking and not rote memorization or imitation.
So do you understand my point of view? You can discount it as much you want but I've met people from community college and I even attended one (extracurricular classes while in high school). I'm not saying that people who go to CC's are dumb or that people who go to Universities are better. What I am saying is that people like you who totally discount an education from a good university don't really know what they're talking about.
I'm glad you make a lot. Good for you. I never said people who didn't go to college couldnt' make alot. Reading my original post you will find that my gripe is with people who say the things you say but the fact is I'm constantly runninig into people who are classically trained (or educated at a good university) and they perform significantly poorly compared to the people who have come from good schools. Facts are facts.
I'm not arguing against buying a house. If I could, I would. Where I live (California) rent would not be cheaper than house payments. At best they are equal.
My point was that he gave me this impression (at least from whathe wrote) that he was having a hard time making ends meet. I find it hard to believe that a person who has a tough time making ends meet also is buying a house (unless they were recently unemployed but that's not the case here).
I don't know the accuracy of your numbers but this is how the breakdown used to work for me when I made 100k.
After state, social security, medicare, etc etc etc I made about 55% (so basically taxed 45%). I guess that does not count the tax I pay on consumption but the majority of it would be gas. Sure you could chalk some up to sales tax of the various things to consume but this is largely a variable factor that you can actually avoid. Simply put, if you're having a hard time paying for things don't buy shit.
If you're paying for property taxes then that means you own land. If you have a hard time paying for your life expenses period perhaps you should not be owning a house.
So after gas I'd say I was paying 50% in taxes. That's still less than this guy and it is when I was making $100,000 a year. People who make less than this get taxed less yet incur the same expenses.
I think we need to distinguish between scholastic knowledge and know-how versus life lessons which you seem to be talking about. I agree that living life teaches you lessons. Yes. But living life won't teach you anything about programming, how to think about things in terms of object-oriented programs, how to work in a group, the advantages of clean code, how spending more time on design will save you more time in the future, using correct and clean syntax, etc etc. Much of this is what you learn in college and not what you will learn by reading "How to program in 21 days". Moreover, life actually does NOT put you in situations to think critically about programming and learning in itself. That happens in college.
1) Of course hardware differentiates PCs if you look at it from the perspective of specific professional use (audio mixers, large storage servers, etc). But, if I may repeat what I said before, I believe that what he means is that to the normal consumers out there there's not much distinction between a PC using an Intel 2 Ghz or an AMD 1700 or even a G4 1.X (i'm not much of a mac user). The same can be said for PDAs and/or mp3 players. But why is it that there is so much buzz about the iPod or why do different PDAs or different cell phones get different levels of attention? Many of them are similar hardware-wise.
2) I agree that there exist such a thing as a design cycle. But now you're just bringing an issue down to word-play. When he said that the design process was "funnel-shaped" I don't think he was excluding the fact that the process was also a design cycle. He referenced the design of the palm (as I stated in my last response) as an example of how they wanted to support a thousand different options but the design got "funneled" to 4 different buttons. So when he says that the design process is a "funnel" I believe he is saying that in supporting human-friendly interfaces we need to simply. We need to take all the options we want to support and "funnel" into a way that easily usable by humans, that makes more sense, and support the core features of a product. I see nothing wrong with that idea.
3) I don't think he was speaking against the contributions of individuals to a project versus the whole. Sure, I will admit, that coders are aware of design when it comes to CODE design. In his example he used hardware and software because the hardware would have to be able the support the software without overkill. THis makes perfect sense and, in this sort of situation, the programmer is not necessarily aware of the hardware restrictions. I'm not sure if this is the best example but to say that the design process for the type of products they put out is a multidisciplinary one is right on target in my eyes. Sure there was some fluff to it but I won't use that as a reason to deny the partial truths he spoke of.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see this so much as "schools helping students break the law" as I see it as "a respected institution not allowing itself to be pushed around by some piece of crap assocation".
Perhaps MIT just has bigger balls and greater respect for their students than most other institutions do. Perhaps they feel that they do no agree with the idea of "unlawful" subpoenas. If that's the case, then the respect of an institution justifies spending money on litigation.
With respect also comes reputation. I wonder how much of this is MIT keeping her reputation of an educational institution that can't be messed with. I know that if I were an MIT alum and I knew that MIT were going to such lengths to protect her students, I'd be willing to give a lot more in donations.
Lastly, let's not forget that we're talking about MIT and not Podunk University. So far everyone has characterized MIT as just another institution, but I'm willing to bet that MIT has much more political power than people recognize. They have a long history of putting out the world's smartest people and many of them are in positions of power as well.
One thing you seemed to have left out, or understated, was Litigation. Litigation is not just "extra time"..it could drag on forever. The issue doesn't seem so clear cut because the 1998 DMCA act is a law but the rules by which MIT protects personal information is also a law (or rule).
The other issue is State vs Federal laws. Here in California it is legal to grow/smoke medicinal marijuana (or maybe that's just here in the bay area). However, this is illegal according to federal law. What happens is that local law enforcement treats these situations as legal while much cannot be done if the feds come in.
I'm curious. I understand that the RIAA can't get everyone and they are just trying to set a couple examples of people but could it be possible that file sharing is so pervasive that this is impossible?
I mean let's take a look at cable tv. Ever since cable broadband became available to me over 4 years ago I've been stealing free cable TV. I even steal free satellite now. I'm willing to bet there are thousands upon thousands of people who steal cable and/or satellite just like me. I'm sure at some time in the past some **AA organization tried to crack down on this..I believe they still are trying to crack down on it. But why has nothing happened to me? Could it be, perhaps, because this violation is difficult to enforce and just pervades society too well?
Ultimately I question what the **AA can accomplish. They're going to fine a couple people, and some people may even go to jail, but, from the looks of it, it doesn't look like anybody is going to quit file sharing any time soon. What seems more realistic is that I'm going to continue to hear about some ppl being fined, some more apps/networks getting shut down, newer apps/networks being created, more *AA bitching, and I'll continue to download free content when my heart so desires.
IANAL, but you mentioned that they issued a non-court approved subpoena (I could be wrong..this is my impression). I'm curious, but this sounds like something very very illegal.
Any lawyers in the house?
Which rides on another good point... avoid processed and prepackaged foods!! All that crap catches up to you and eventually you'll get the Marie Calendars/Hot Pockets/Drumsticks software programmer body type! These foods are loaded with crap and the first step to looking better is ingesting healthier food that's fresh and doesn't have all those preservatives.
On this note, it is valuable to remember that both aerobic and anaerobic exercise is important. Aerobic exercise is good to get the blood flowing, heart pumping and gives a nice rush as a reward. Anaerobic exercise (lifting weights) is also important because it works out the muscles and using your muscles is great for a constant way to burn calories even when you're not working out. So try to switch off between the two.
I'm happy to buy CDs but I don't think the issue or solution is to just "give in and buy CDs".
First of all, to repeat what's been said, some people just want to purchase certain songs. I'd say that only 5% of the CDs I own have more than 3 songs (out of an average of 12 tracks) that I enjoy. There's something definitely wrong with purchasing a $12-15 and only getting 1-3 songs that I really like.
I did a check on CDUniverse for the Snatch soundtrack which I've been looking to buy and it's around $15 which is the same as it is on CDNow (Amazon). In the stores it is $16+tax. Now I know this is only one case, but it's a real-world example of how I would buy it if it were $12 but I'm unable to find it for that price.
In my case, it's not that I missed the paragraph but that the article seemed to have this feel of "Google sucks" and then, in the end, a small paragraph is devoted to an actual explanation of "ok, maybe it's because it's based on the actual content of the web" which to me represents the largest and most important point but doesn't get addressed.
I understand that the point of the article was to point out that Google's results are skewed but that's just stating the obvious. To me that's like saying "the majority of the website are porn". Google is the only search engine that gives me a good link result nearly 100% whether it's on a technically-related subject or not.
I'm not too familiar with driver programming and I'm not sure if the hardware can even support this, but wouldn't the obvious solution be to make the WiFi card APIs so that they do NOT expose the ability to modify/adjust the frequency they are operating at?
I'm not too experienced with the amount of power needed for the different loads of users out there but I imagine that if you're trying to support more users than your systems can handle, and you "can't" afford any more (or stronger) machines then you're simply in the wrong business (assuming the work has been architected decently). It just doesn't make sense to try to make the hardware accomodate your financial budgets plus operational requirements when it sometimes is impossible (or very very very difficult).
"I've been writing software for nigh on twenty years without it - why make life hard? "
I think there is a distinction here that needs to be brought up that I feel many programmers are unaware of. This is aimed for programmers who decided to go out there and learn Java who have never learned an OO language.
I think the goal of programmers should be to learn to code well. Having said that, those who then go on to "learn how to program java" from an instructional book are a bit mistaken in my humble opinion. There is a big distinction between language, which is a tool, and theory. The above analogy would be best explained by saying that you would want to learn how to write good stories and then picking up a bit on the english language. Good stories can be written in any language, pick one. It is the same for programming. Learning a language won't teach you to program well, it will just teach you to program in a different language.
Why learn OO? Let me take the analogy further: scripting languages really only allow you to write short stories. They do things similar to OO programming, but the scope of their use is quite limited and when you attempt to take them out of that realm they become difficult to use and unwieldy. An OO language allows you to write novels. They allow you to program larger programs, with a better underlying structure and more complexity.
Ah I see. Here's where the analogy of a writer does actually come in handy. :)
...etc etc etc.
The difference is that writing, to me, is something that is pretty subjective when it comes to a good piece of work and a bad piece of work. Sure there are some recognized awards, but basically a large part of the writing involves creativity and less defined by logic and strict methods of criteria.
While I agree that a random kid in the phillipines COULD churn out some code, I would only agree if he were a random genius. Let me elaborate.
In this case I think we can compare it to mathematics. Anybody across the world can learn mathematics if thy somehow came across a book but most people can only learn advanced theories with some sort of higher education. Only a very few can learn it on their own.
This is the same for programming. It differs from writing (and from how you depicted programming) because much of good programming is not subjective. There is a pretty clear cut definition for clean, maintainable, efficient code. Not only that, there are also clear lines on which algorithms are better used in certain situations.
Sure the random kid in the phillipines can pick up a How to Program in 21 days and learn C/C++ or whatever. He can probably even learn about data structures and threading. But I doubt that he would be able to learn (without intense study) what the running time is for Quicksort or even how to implement it. I doubt he'd be able to learn which program run in log n time
He has as much ability to do this as he might be able to study the advanced points of mechanical engineering, architecture, quantum physics etc.
Computers are simply a tool but I think I've been talking about programming from the beginning. Basically I think you need to distinguish (which I've been trying to do) between the simple computer jobs (QA) and the more complex ones (those that take place in research centers at places like IBM, Google, etc).
I mean to take this concept to an extreme I'm sure some kid in the phillipines was making some logo program while Xerox was busy creating DOS.
Your analogy does hold up but I never said it didn't. I was saying how I don't see any special relations between programmers and writers versus programmers and plumbers or programmers and brick layers. In ANY profession, one who has greater skill will be in greater demand.
Theoretically, I agree that geographical location doesn't make a difference. But what you totally discount is the fact that the US has the greatest number of good universities and colleges. Sure people can leave the country, but the fact is that most of them stay here. So, because of this, a higher number of skilled workers are in America.
Sure some foreign institutions have merit but I'd be willing to bet that America still leads the world, by far, in the quality of advanced institutions.
I don't get the programmer vs. writer analogy. The only similarities you seem to show about programmers vs. writers are the ideas of supply and demand. But supply and demand apply to all jobs similarly. What's the distinction for programmers/writers?
Anyway, you're right about supply and demand. But what you didn't address is why some professions remain higher paid while others don't? The reason why is because some professions require a certain level of training, specialty and skill in order to execute them. Computers themselves might be cheap, but a good computer education isn't. Not everyone can pay private school fees (although there are some good public schools), and not everyone gets a masters or PhD either.
Based on this, I surmise that the "lower" IT jobs (easy stuff) will be exported because not much training is needed and they can be performed by Joe Schmoe who's read How to Become a 1337 Programmer in 21 Days. But, other higher skilled jobs like research divisions at IBM, Google, etc, will remain with the better trained programmers who tend to come from American universities.
I haven't RTFA but I'd like to throw in a little speculation.
Why would anyone want to buy this? Well why would anyone buy an Xbox or a PS2 when they have a Nintendo? That's a silly question. Simply put: 1) it might have better hardware, 2) it might have better games, 3) it might offer games that other consoles don't..etc etc etc. There are a million and 1 reasons why people would purchase this console and they are the same reasons why people purchased consoles in the past.
I agree that "logically" downloading games purely over the internet is probably not the wisest solution for your standard graphics-intensive game. Somehow, though, I don't think they're that stupid assuming that people will wait 1 whole day to download a new game. I'm goign to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course you can't trade games that you buy. It's called licensing. It applies to all games/software out there. It's not surprising.
Secondly, I'm sure that if your console "breaks down" your registration will allow you to get a second copy. This is only common sense.
Lastly, you ask, "Considering the amount of games available for my non-phatoms computers, why would I ever want to bother with it?" Have you ever owned a Nintendo? Xbox? Gamecube? Playtstation I/II? The same can be said for all these consoles yet they existed with varying levels of popularity. This question has been answered before.
That would be an interesting way for broadband to find its way into more american homes..selling internet connectivity with games. I wonder if they could somehow offer a prorated fee for only game usage.
Bye bye electricity == bye bye power? I don't know much about airplanes but I'm assuming every other navigational (including steering) as well as engine power is linked to electrical power. Even if they did cut the power they wouldn't go very far.
Yes and no.
If you have too many leaders in one room trying to design a software product you're bound to never get anythign done.
I'd like to take an Ayn Rand position on it. I'd say that most developers do NOT need to know much about marketing except for the lead developers and architects who should be interacting WITH the marketing fellows to create a product that's both sound in architecture and marketing.
All the other developers that work underneath this technical leads don't need to be any wiser. That's what leaders are for.
I wish this were reality because it is the way it should be.
From what I've seen, the economic climate is one where programmers have much less a voice in these matters and if they aren't willing to kill themselves to make these deadlines then they might need to be looking for a new job.
It's also often the case that it's "your word against theirs" and no COO/CEO/big kahuna likes to throw away business. That's the business world. Just get what you can get done..even hack it, as long as we can give something to the client in 30 days. It's sad but often true.
I'm surprised some of these business even exist today (including the one I currently work at where this is the basic mantra).
I think you should go back and read the threads and responses.
You may not be talking about programming or even a scholastic education, but I was. And YOU responded to ME saying I was wrong. The point I made in my last response was that I was originally talking about education and school not life's lessons. You're the one who basically came to me and said "You're wrong" and using life's lessons as an example. Do you see the problem here?
I think you can learn to work in groups as well as learn other things without going to college. I wasn't speaking against that. Perhaps I should be a bit more specific when I originally stated "learn how to think critically".
The distinction lies in between what one would learn at a University and what one learns at a trade school. I will use programming for the sake of an example (and will admit that I'm largely generalizing things to make a point). In a trade school you will learn programming languages, syntax, object oriented programming in the quickest way that will prepare one to go out and find a job programming. Just working alone you might be able to pick up these skills but at best they are learned by either imitation, or by something akin to a "How to program in 21 days book".
At a University, you are exposed to (and even may participate in) research as well as the greater picture behind programming and what it is used for. Classes not only teach you about programming as a trade but as a theoretical science. Projects pose theories and questions that cause one to learn through critical thinking and not rote memorization or imitation.
So do you understand my point of view? You can discount it as much you want but I've met people from community college and I even attended one (extracurricular classes while in high school). I'm not saying that people who go to CC's are dumb or that people who go to Universities are better. What I am saying is that people like you who totally discount an education from a good university don't really know what they're talking about.
I'm glad you make a lot. Good for you. I never said people who didn't go to college couldnt' make alot. Reading my original post you will find that my gripe is with people who say the things you say but the fact is I'm constantly runninig into people who are classically trained (or educated at a good university) and they perform significantly poorly compared to the people who have come from good schools. Facts are facts.
I'm not arguing against buying a house. If I could, I would. Where I live (California) rent would not be cheaper than house payments. At best they are equal. My point was that he gave me this impression (at least from whathe wrote) that he was having a hard time making ends meet. I find it hard to believe that a person who has a tough time making ends meet also is buying a house (unless they were recently unemployed but that's not the case here).
I don't know the accuracy of your numbers but this is how the breakdown used to work for me when I made 100k.
After state, social security, medicare, etc etc etc I made about 55% (so basically taxed 45%). I guess that does not count the tax I pay on consumption but the majority of it would be gas. Sure you could chalk some up to sales tax of the various things to consume but this is largely a variable factor that you can actually avoid. Simply put, if you're having a hard time paying for things don't buy shit.
If you're paying for property taxes then that means you own land. If you have a hard time paying for your life expenses period perhaps you should not be owning a house.
So after gas I'd say I was paying 50% in taxes. That's still less than this guy and it is when I was making $100,000 a year. People who make less than this get taxed less yet incur the same expenses.
Let me guess. You didn't go to college?
I think we need to distinguish between scholastic knowledge and know-how versus life lessons which you seem to be talking about. I agree that living life teaches you lessons. Yes. But living life won't teach you anything about programming, how to think about things in terms of object-oriented programs, how to work in a group, the advantages of clean code, how spending more time on design will save you more time in the future, using correct and clean syntax, etc etc. Much of this is what you learn in college and not what you will learn by reading "How to program in 21 days". Moreover, life actually does NOT put you in situations to think critically about programming and learning in itself. That happens in college.
Perspective, perspective, perspective.
1) Of course hardware differentiates PCs if you look at it from the perspective of specific professional use (audio mixers, large storage servers, etc). But, if I may repeat what I said before, I believe that what he means is that to the normal consumers out there there's not much distinction between a PC using an Intel 2 Ghz or an AMD 1700 or even a G4 1.X (i'm not much of a mac user). The same can be said for PDAs and/or mp3 players. But why is it that there is so much buzz about the iPod or why do different PDAs or different cell phones get different levels of attention? Many of them are similar hardware-wise.
2) I agree that there exist such a thing as a design cycle. But now you're just bringing an issue down to word-play. When he said that the design process was "funnel-shaped" I don't think he was excluding the fact that the process was also a design cycle. He referenced the design of the palm (as I stated in my last response) as an example of how they wanted to support a thousand different options but the design got "funneled" to 4 different buttons. So when he says that the design process is a "funnel" I believe he is saying that in supporting human-friendly interfaces we need to simply. We need to take all the options we want to support and "funnel" into a way that easily usable by humans, that makes more sense, and support the core features of a product. I see nothing wrong with that idea.
3) I don't think he was speaking against the contributions of individuals to a project versus the whole. Sure, I will admit, that coders are aware of design when it comes to CODE design. In his example he used hardware and software because the hardware would have to be able the support the software without overkill. THis makes perfect sense and, in this sort of situation, the programmer is not necessarily aware of the hardware restrictions. I'm not sure if this is the best example but to say that the design process for the type of products they put out is a multidisciplinary one is right on target in my eyes. Sure there was some fluff to it but I won't use that as a reason to deny the partial truths he spoke of.