I have a series2 80 hour. It's the one made by TiVo, the ugly black box.:)
I'm looking for something that's as easy as DVRchive is for ReplayTV, and the last time I looked into it was about 6 months ago. I found a few leads at that time, but I didn't have the time to follow up on them. As long as it's not a no-brainer I probably won't be interested, but I'll admit as time goes on...I'm dyin' to get stuff off my TiVo.
I'll check out your link but I've been there before and I don't really want to invest a lot of time into a homebrew option, but maybe nowadays they're talking about simpler solutions?
What does being a woman have to do with my eyes glazing over? I spend most of my time at work not "listening to" the other tech workers around me, but rather "putting up with" them, women or men. I'm not being cynical, it's just a fact that when talking ideas and tech, 90% of what is said by 90% of people is just not that valuable.
Depending on the woman, I'll admit that I may be more willing to put up with her than your average guy, though.
PC is now dead, so I'll be the first to say it: people are people. Men like women. Shocking to say, but a lot of women even like men! <gasp> Regardless of who you are, though, expecting respect is not going to get you anywhere. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has to earn respect. Make your bones and have something useful to add, and you'll start noticing that the people who know what's going on will start paying attention to you. Besides, people deal with other people differently based on who they are. Being female is definitely part of who a woman is, so it's going to impact in myriad subtle ways how people communicate with her. That's not saying it's better or worse, though it can go either way.
Hey...what does this guy (writing the article) mean that it's "difficult" to get content off the TiVo? I've been trying to figure out a way to get shows off my TiVo onto my computer for the last few weeks and I've just about come to the conclusion that it's impossible.
I don't want to start an RWAR here, but my dad has a ReplayTV and I have a TiVo. I have to say, the ReplayTV has a ridiculous interface. It's as if the UI designers over at replay went into the nearest big city and picked up a big fat bag of crack before they sat down to start doing the UI mock-ups.
Why is it that ReplayTV manages to include more information on every menu than TiVo, yet has more total menus and options without providing any additional functionality over TiVo? Why is it that on many of the screens (like the main menu), replay packs all of the content on the screen into one corner or a sidebar so they can use 80% of the available real estate to display a giant replay logo? Lucky for my dad he's got a 50" projo screen because anything smaller we wouldn't be able to read the text it's so small. Why are they advertising to users that already bought the unit in space that could be used for functionality? Methinks this must be the work of that giant bag of crack.
All in all the two players basically do the same thing. I just boggle every time I have to use my dad's replay at the page after page of tiny menu's, shifting graphics, useless info/built-in ads. It really makes the thing unusable. TiVo may look pretty and cutesy (which I don't prefer), but at least it's usable. I just wish TiVo would come out with different skins/themes that you could download for the UI to get rid of those childish primary color schemes and the little bouncing dude. At least the real estate for TiVo ads are restricted to bouncy dude's chest, though, and not 80% of the screen.
That's what the affected group always says: "Oh, it's different this time, it's much worse." The overall impact on our economy is not all as catastrophic as you're making it out to be, it's the normal churn'n'burn of business.
I know Wheelan is covering basic stuff, I wanted to make sure I chose a book that would be a good introduction to the guy I was responding to without recommending anything controversial...it has to be facts, not agendas.
The fact is that everyone, including software engineers, always complain about how expensive software is (unless you're running OSS). Now business is trying something out to see if it's cheaper to produce this way, that will bring down costs for everyone. I can't honestly say that it would be patriotic for me to lobby as part of some special interest group just because the market is threatening to make my skill set less relevant. One cannot expect in life that what's good for everyone is always going to align perfectly with what's good for oneself. In those cases, you have recognize it and move on...even if you don't agree with me, you have to at least accept that it's happening whether you like it or not and move on with your life.
Yea, I'm trolling. You're right, we never should have fired all those switchboard operators and replaced them with automatic switching networks. We shouldn't have fired all those punch card loaders and updated computers. We shouldn't have fired all those manufacturing workers in auto plants and replaced them with robots. And right now, we shouldn't move software development to India if it's cheaper...we should engage in protectionist behaviors to protect our little group of laborers. Why don't we bring back threshing and planting by hand to our farmlands and get rid of all those job-killing farm machines while we're at it?
That's not to say that outsourcing to India actually is cheaper when it comes to software development...I personally don't think the numbers bear that out. But if it is, think about the implications of what you're saying. The US has thrived in the past on replacing outmoded ways of doing things with technology and cheaper labor to countries that have no better alternatives, and the rising tide has carried all boats. Yes, it sucks to be in the group that's getting hardest hit, and those individuals may never recover in their lifetimes unless they can adapt and find a way to be useful to the changing market. But that's the way it is.
In the afterglow of my last lecture? That had all the sting and sass required to make you a/. superstar. Congratulations, you've impressed the geeks and will be venerated due to that comment. Or...I have an idea...you can read the book I suggested, which is not a controversial book, it's simply a summary of what every economist agrees upon, basic econ 101 stuff, and learn something...or you can hit reply and unveil your next/. sound bite.
(You know what I've learned about people that trash on fancy book learnin' in favor of their uneducated, but "real world" experience? They're usually right about things like how to drive a nail, or shingle a roof. They're usually wrong about things like advanced math, quantum mechanics, and economics. Education, as it turns out, doesn't always equal bad. Maybe you should rethink your position on reading in general, and maybe grab that book after all.)
It might not be worth it in the short term as you're looking at your current job. But it would almost certainly be worth it in spades when taken over your life long career. Economics models and study after study prove that investing money in one's education is one of the sure investments in life that always pays back a large return.
But if you really want to see a short-term bump that's obvious, and that's a valid thing to want, then you're looking at it all wrong. Go back to school and get your bachelor's, and then go on to get a Master's too. There's your short-term and long-term bump, and unless you're in your 50s, it's totally worth it.
I get a little tired of hearing people that don't have degrees go on and on about how they're not necessary. Yes, there are exceptional cases both ways, but the general rule is indisputably true that people with degrees generally outearn, and should outearn, those without. You might be the exception, and that's fine. But don't expect the rest of the world to recognize that. Most of the time, if you want recognition and respect, you've got to play the game the way it was set up and pay your dues. That's what education is maybe about in your case.
The fact that we live in a place where these options are present should be enough to encourage everyone to shoot for a complete education. I don't want to start a thing here, but I just can't listen to another argument from someone that comes along in business and is upset that there's a set of house rules already in place and they're not getting the special consideration they deserve. I guess I've just heard the plaintive cry of one too many a misunderstood genius. If you really think that the business can't do without you, then threaten to leave and lay it on the line. If you're really worth what you think you're worth, they'll pay you that much and you won't have to leave after all.
I expect the free market to work. If he doesn't want to work for less than $75k, he shouldn't have to. I don't want to, I'll tell you that. On the other hand, if they send off all the CS jobs to India, and that does turn out to be cheaper (which it may not be after all is said and done), then I'm for that too. Even though it hurts me and my ability to earn, it is good for the country and good for India to direct our resources where we can get the most bang for the buck. I don't like it either, but speaking the truth on this issue is patriotic and I'm a patriot. (If you don't believe that directing our resources to India if it is indeed cheaper is better for the US as well as India, you need to read a basic economics primer for the layman. Try out Naked Economics...you'll also learn why sweatshops in third world countries are a perfectly ethical practice.)
As for me, I have a good degree from a top school, and I might find myself in a situation where I need to pursue an even more advanced degree. So what, I'm not going to whine about going into debt. After all, every study consistently shows that education is the one investment that always pays back a higher return than any other.
What you say is true...there are exceptional cases where people can be good software engineers even though they don't have college degrees. But so what? This is a numbers game, and getting through college nowadays is a badge that means you can reasonably stick through and complete a long-term goal at a relatively young age. That's important...it means you were forged in an environment that allowed you to balance your personal life with a work load (not a terribly tough one) and carry off both.
Your argument by example (5 examples, actually) is just flawed logic. By that argument, I could say the same thing about being a billionaire--Gates didn't complete college, therefore it's reasonable to expect that billionaires do not generally have degrees. But this would be wrong...most billionaires do have college degrees.
That's how companies look at hiring. They want to mitigate their risk. They interview someone, and that person seems good (interviews are notoriously bad ways of judging how people are going to perform on a job, except the part where they talk to past employers and consider your past experience, or the guy walks in and has an obvious chip on his shoulder), but they're still pretty worried about whether he'll perform when he walks out. So say they hire two guys, one with a degree and one without and they both turn out to be disasters. How does the manager that hired the guy without explain the hiring decision to his boss? The boss'll say, "What were you thinking, this guy doesn't even have a college degree!"
You could keep living in the clouds and say the manager should patiently explain to his boss his view that college degrees don't really matter...except that's totally wrong. Remember, we're not talking about the exceptional case here, we're talking about a numbers game, and whether you like it or not, it is generally true that people with degrees will, on the average, outperform people without.
In discussions like this it's common for people to pay so much attention to the exceptional cases that they forget they're still dealing with exceptional cases.
Having said that, I think your way of looking at things has become increasingly popular over the last generation or two. This is because in the 50s, 60s, and 70s having a college degree meant more than it does today. It was difficult to get one. Now the average university has become a rubber stamp mill that just passes students through. The average bachelors degree student today knows less than the average high school graduate of the 1950s. Jobs like engineer, architect, etc, didn't used to require college degrees for this reason.
Now college is necessary because our public schools are in decline and have been for several decades (my journal entry on public school). As the teachers unions force one decision-by-committee on the system after another, things get worse and worse and all the good teachers get driven into other professions. Couple this with the sense of entitlement that most people in the US have nowadays about education ("my child has a RIGHT to an education whether he works hard or not!") and you get the current situation, where everyone must have college degrees just to prove they're smart enough to breathe. This is why the top 20 or so college institutions of each particular field, that have managed to retain their previous high standards, are so sought after.
It's funny that most people think the way you do about programming, that it's not bound to any kind of physical world and therefore that means that there are no "natural" constraints. That's wrong in my estimation.
CS is a largely mathematical pursuit. Math is not really bound to the physical universe, it's just a giant theoretical model based on numbers, operations, and rules. But those elements must all work together to be consistent and complete. Good software design, which I rarely see, works under the same principles of completeness and consistency. In fact, CS started out as a mathematical discipline with guys like Turing and Godel making contributions even before the notion of the modern day computer even existed. It's sad that CS people in college don't even know the background of CS so they really don't consider CS a math-type discipline. When you get into the advanced mathematics of CS and you see things like Design by Contract and predicate calculus get involved, it becomes clear. These are things that ought to be touched upon in every undergrad's experience, even if the details can't be explored.
The good CS programs stress this relationship between computers and math. Maybe this is why CS degrees are important to most employers.
Ok, apparently my post uses too many big words for you to handle it. Fine, then, don't read it...check the word over at dictionary.com, feel humiliated when you realize you're wrong, and then I'll accept your apology.:p
You probably already know you're wrong, though...I notice you posted AC.
There's such a thing as an "open letter" to the Linux community. In this most vitriolic of political campaigns, I've seen the open letter resurge in popularity. Partisan groups write open letters to Hillary Clinton supporters, Nader supporters, Kerry and Bush supporters most definitely, anti-war people, etc.
Sometimes these are couched in terms of being an open letter to the person specifically, as in "An Open Letter to Ralph Nader"...but it's not really to him. It's really intended to be directed to a bunch of unorganized Nader supporters. And I believe the tradition with these things is that they can be picked up and republished anywhere if they are understood to be "open" as the term is intended. So nothing would stop the big OSS supporters like Stallman from throwing it up on their websites.
If I were angling to be difficult, I would argue that the marketshare-driven difficulties associated with owning and driving a DeLorean, when all is said and done, is why many people in fact don't consider them "ready to be driven," at least driven by themselves.
See, the responses to your question below are exactly the problem with linux. You made a compelling argument for why linux can't take over the desktop unless it becomes more user-friendly, and the response you get? Of course you can have it log in automatically. You mean to say you didn't know that a CS student in Sweden recently published a series of replacement libraries that you can install after recompiling the kernel? All you have to do is wade through the configuration text files and employ this particular fluke of his desktop management software that allows what you're trying to do! Duh!!!
Of course I'm exaggerating to make the point. But the point remains: it's not about whether it can be done. Anythingcan be done...it's all just moving bits in a chip.
In the olden days, I understand when someone complained that they're *nix box couldn't do something in a research lab somewhere in the world, the standard response was: "Hey dum-dum. All you have to do is write a short C program yourself that does X, Y, and Z. Duh!" This is still true today...except Grammy-Maw's not writing a C program, man. If her options are: (1) write a C program, (2) keep abreast of every CS student's contributions to open source, or (3) use Windows, which option is Grammy-Maw going to choose, do you think?
And before a/. loudmouth responds with the snarky and ever-counterproductive, "Don't use Linux, then!" take a look at this thread first, in particular the "Care to write it?" comment and everything by user killjoe.
I agree that Linux has many obstacles to overcome to be competitive with Windows. We can argue about the specific points you made and rebutted from the article, but the broad strokes of your response are correct. Most people aren't going to deal with the peculiarities of Linux whether they're better or not if they don't have to deal with the equivalent ones in Windows for whatever reason.
Check out my journal entry for an argument that looks more at the broader issues rather than a specific point-by-point. Also, the points you make are a perfect rebuttal to killjoe's comments of the Moving to Linux thread a while back.
It's as if you were sent from above to prove my point.
For anyone reading this thread, read the above post carefully. The sentiment expressed above is the most corrosive thing to Linux that could possibly be said, and I hear it enough that it ought to be worrisome to anyone that wants Linux to succeed.
This is the attitude holding Linux and all open source back: We don't need users. It's their job to adapt to the software, it's not the software's job to adapt to them. This is one of the unique advantages that business enjoys over open source...in business, you're free to think the same way right up until the profit motive has your boss telling you to adapt the software or get fired. Unfortunately, without that profit motive, there's no limiting factor on this damn-the-customer attitude.
How many people use Linux on the home desktop, percentage-wise? Apparently enough for you, killjoe...everyone else, in your words, "isn't capable of running Linux." Too bad 98% of the home market isn't capable and you don't feel making it accessible to them is important. If your approach wins, Microsoft will always dominate the home desktop.
People like you, killjoe, don't understand that if you like Linux now, with the support that it currently enjoys, you'll love it if it gets a significant chunk of the home market. The advantages of Linux and its business model will go on steroids if only the OS could build critical mass. You're too focused on the good aspects that Linux currently possesses, to the extent you've lost sight of what it could be.
You misunderstand me, I think. I too am willing to give Linux the latitude for the learning curve...it's just that I can't afford to. It's too high, and I don't have the time.
If you scroll down and see my response to loudmouth, you'll see I'm a developer and I work in Linux all the time. I just don't have time to admin the darn thing. I truly hope the new distros take care of all these problems and are truly easy to use and configure...I won't know for a bit until I get time to replace the old installations I have running right now. And I've learned not to make time for these projects if it interferes with my life too much...I've been burned too many times before.
I haven't installed it in three years, dum-dum. I run it every day. I'm a software engineer by trade and I do most of my development in *nix-based platforms.
At home I have four boxes, 3 of which are Linux. I only have time to keep one up to date, though--the Windows box. Less doc to read, less discussion boards to visit, less to mess with all around. I don't particularly like it, but I can't afford the time to become an expert in adminning my own box, and I can't afford to hire someone else to do it like I have at work.
They still run...I just run into roadblocks and then they sit until I have time to figure it out. Sometimes that roadblock is something I really need to get done, so I move over to Windows. I'm not a casual Linux user, and I'm in software full time by trade. I could figure it out--I could figure anything computer-related out--given the time. I've been working with Linux on and off for about 6 years now, I think I've given it enough of a go.
Now that you realize you've put your foot in it, have a look at my journal entry on the problems people have with Linux, and then maybe you'll be qualified to comment on my thoughts.
I was waiting for at least one/. loudmouth to come along and start shooting it off. Not one to disappoint, I see. I hate it when people are so committed to some lofty ideal that they get blinded to every statement that conflicts with that ideal. It's not good for you, and it's not good for Linux, so knock it off.
Well, but I don't think it's useful to dismiss these kinds of comments about Linux not being easy to use. It's true.
Here's an example...when you have to install an app from a tarball. What's a tarball? It's an aggregated set of files in a tar, for tape archive. No one uses tapes anymore. No one that has this bit of knowledge will necessarily understand the two phase process of aggregating files and then zipping them. No one really deals with zips anymore in the Windows world...now they have installation executables.
Linux has that too, and that's fine. But can you completely run a Linux system and flex it in all different ways without being a C programmer, or dealing with tarballs, or any of the other myriad arcane activities that Linux home admins eventually find themselves doing?
I dunno. Maybe. I haven't installed a Linux system for about 3 years, so maybe they've made great strides in this regard. But if they have, I'd have to point out that no one's really waging a campaign to make sure I know about it.
I'll include my standard caveat with this post. I like Linux, I like what it stands for and what it represents. I like the functionality, the apps, the free software...I like it all. Theoretically, I like it all. In the real world, though, I find myself running Windows. I keep meaning to run Linux up, and someday I will once more. But every time I run into a major problem, I revert back to Windows for a while until I get the time to forge back into Linux. Could I solve these problems and stay true to the Linux ideal? Sure...but I have a life outside of hacking my box.
Actually, it's not like complaining about kids at all. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of anyone specially modifying their kids to make them louder.
I love Firefox too since I started using it a few weeks ago. Only one question, though...to be considered in competitions like this, doesn't there have to be at least a 1.0 version? I mean, one could argue the playing field isn't level if it's not at 1.0 because it's not the officially, full-featured release version yet. What if Firefox 1.0 includes a bunch of bugs or implements requirements that make it far less desirable to use?
Well, I don't think quitting is necessarily the answer for everyone...
I found that as I did more programming at work, my interests in programming diverged to cover the surrounding areas...architecture, design, business analysis, QA, quality processes like Six Sigma, development processes (RUP, XP, Agile, etc). The stuff outside the pure coding started to affect the work I did, and I wanted as much control over it as possible because the effects weren't always positive. Not only did I find my interests in programming run deeper than just knowing a language (OOA&D, architecture...interesting stuff!) but it also helped in my career to understand what everyone else's function in the chain is.
So at home, I kept hacking on this thing and that thing, but that did begin to fall by the wayside and I found myself reading up on these other topics. Even so, occasionally my interest in all things technical just switches off.
In that downtime, I look into various other things and discover various other hobbies. Photography is my latest thing, for now. Just poke around and try different things...a lot of figuring out what to do with yourself is just experimenting and dabbling in a bit of everything. Most of the time, you'll say, "Wow. Don't ever want to do that again." Occasionally you'll discover something you are genuinely interested in.
I heard that the adoption of the term blue moon in modern usage actually stems from a misappropriation of the term from some Native American tribe (around the time frame you mention, early 19th C). The term, as far as my uninformed and caffeine-addled mind can conjure at the moment, originally referred to an occurrence of a particular full moon that occurred during the three-month harvest season; specifically, when four moons occurred during this three month season, the third of the sequence was called a "blue moon". (The Wikipedia entry seems to make reference to this--see the second entry--but I can't find anything specific on it. Also, it doesn't seem to mention the "harvest" season, just any season, which is not what I heard from my unreliable source.)
This is why our concept of blue moon as the second in a month doesn't seem to make sense in terms of rarity...it's not that rare. It makes a bit more sense if we consider how often four moons occur during the three month harvest season. That was probably quite a bit more rare.
So am I not supposed to notice the guy who lives down the block from me and tunes his bike up every other weekend? Does it not matter that every other Saturday from about 10am to noon I have to listen to braAAAAaaaaAAAp braAAAAaaaaP vRROOOOOM?
I don't care what happens to the guy on the highway. I managed to solve the same problem through a series of choices without causing noise pollution anywhere, at any time. So should he.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a series2 80 hour. It's the one made by TiVo, the ugly black box. :)
I'm looking for something that's as easy as DVRchive is for ReplayTV, and the last time I looked into it was about 6 months ago. I found a few leads at that time, but I didn't have the time to follow up on them. As long as it's not a no-brainer I probably won't be interested, but I'll admit as time goes on...I'm dyin' to get stuff off my TiVo.
I'll check out your link but I've been there before and I don't really want to invest a lot of time into a homebrew option, but maybe nowadays they're talking about simpler solutions?
What does being a woman have to do with my eyes glazing over? I spend most of my time at work not "listening to" the other tech workers around me, but rather "putting up with" them, women or men. I'm not being cynical, it's just a fact that when talking ideas and tech, 90% of what is said by 90% of people is just not that valuable.
Depending on the woman, I'll admit that I may be more willing to put up with her than your average guy, though.
PC is now dead, so I'll be the first to say it: people are people. Men like women. Shocking to say, but a lot of women even like men! <gasp> Regardless of who you are, though, expecting respect is not going to get you anywhere. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has to earn respect. Make your bones and have something useful to add, and you'll start noticing that the people who know what's going on will start paying attention to you. Besides, people deal with other people differently based on who they are. Being female is definitely part of who a woman is, so it's going to impact in myriad subtle ways how people communicate with her. That's not saying it's better or worse, though it can go either way.
Hey...what does this guy (writing the article) mean that it's "difficult" to get content off the TiVo? I've been trying to figure out a way to get shows off my TiVo onto my computer for the last few weeks and I've just about come to the conclusion that it's impossible.
Does anyone know of a way?
I don't want to start an RWAR here, but my dad has a ReplayTV and I have a TiVo. I have to say, the ReplayTV has a ridiculous interface. It's as if the UI designers over at replay went into the nearest big city and picked up a big fat bag of crack before they sat down to start doing the UI mock-ups.
Why is it that ReplayTV manages to include more information on every menu than TiVo, yet has more total menus and options without providing any additional functionality over TiVo? Why is it that on many of the screens (like the main menu), replay packs all of the content on the screen into one corner or a sidebar so they can use 80% of the available real estate to display a giant replay logo? Lucky for my dad he's got a 50" projo screen because anything smaller we wouldn't be able to read the text it's so small. Why are they advertising to users that already bought the unit in space that could be used for functionality? Methinks this must be the work of that giant bag of crack.
All in all the two players basically do the same thing. I just boggle every time I have to use my dad's replay at the page after page of tiny menu's, shifting graphics, useless info/built-in ads. It really makes the thing unusable. TiVo may look pretty and cutesy (which I don't prefer), but at least it's usable. I just wish TiVo would come out with different skins/themes that you could download for the UI to get rid of those childish primary color schemes and the little bouncing dude. At least the real estate for TiVo ads are restricted to bouncy dude's chest, though, and not 80% of the screen.
That's what the affected group always says: "Oh, it's different this time, it's much worse." The overall impact on our economy is not all as catastrophic as you're making it out to be, it's the normal churn'n'burn of business.
I know Wheelan is covering basic stuff, I wanted to make sure I chose a book that would be a good introduction to the guy I was responding to without recommending anything controversial...it has to be facts, not agendas.
The fact is that everyone, including software engineers, always complain about how expensive software is (unless you're running OSS). Now business is trying something out to see if it's cheaper to produce this way, that will bring down costs for everyone. I can't honestly say that it would be patriotic for me to lobby as part of some special interest group just because the market is threatening to make my skill set less relevant. One cannot expect in life that what's good for everyone is always going to align perfectly with what's good for oneself. In those cases, you have recognize it and move on...even if you don't agree with me, you have to at least accept that it's happening whether you like it or not and move on with your life.
Yea, I'm trolling. You're right, we never should have fired all those switchboard operators and replaced them with automatic switching networks. We shouldn't have fired all those punch card loaders and updated computers. We shouldn't have fired all those manufacturing workers in auto plants and replaced them with robots. And right now, we shouldn't move software development to India if it's cheaper...we should engage in protectionist behaviors to protect our little group of laborers. Why don't we bring back threshing and planting by hand to our farmlands and get rid of all those job-killing farm machines while we're at it?
That's not to say that outsourcing to India actually is cheaper when it comes to software development...I personally don't think the numbers bear that out. But if it is, think about the implications of what you're saying. The US has thrived in the past on replacing outmoded ways of doing things with technology and cheaper labor to countries that have no better alternatives, and the rising tide has carried all boats. Yes, it sucks to be in the group that's getting hardest hit, and those individuals may never recover in their lifetimes unless they can adapt and find a way to be useful to the changing market. But that's the way it is.
In the afterglow of my last lecture? That had all the sting and sass required to make you a /. superstar. Congratulations, you've impressed the geeks and will be venerated due to that comment. Or...I have an idea...you can read the book I suggested, which is not a controversial book, it's simply a summary of what every economist agrees upon, basic econ 101 stuff, and learn something...or you can hit reply and unveil your next /. sound bite.
(You know what I've learned about people that trash on fancy book learnin' in favor of their uneducated, but "real world" experience? They're usually right about things like how to drive a nail, or shingle a roof. They're usually wrong about things like advanced math, quantum mechanics, and economics. Education, as it turns out, doesn't always equal bad. Maybe you should rethink your position on reading in general, and maybe grab that book after all.)
It might not be worth it in the short term as you're looking at your current job. But it would almost certainly be worth it in spades when taken over your life long career. Economics models and study after study prove that investing money in one's education is one of the sure investments in life that always pays back a large return.
But if you really want to see a short-term bump that's obvious, and that's a valid thing to want, then you're looking at it all wrong. Go back to school and get your bachelor's, and then go on to get a Master's too. There's your short-term and long-term bump, and unless you're in your 50s, it's totally worth it.
I get a little tired of hearing people that don't have degrees go on and on about how they're not necessary. Yes, there are exceptional cases both ways, but the general rule is indisputably true that people with degrees generally outearn, and should outearn, those without. You might be the exception, and that's fine. But don't expect the rest of the world to recognize that. Most of the time, if you want recognition and respect, you've got to play the game the way it was set up and pay your dues. That's what education is maybe about in your case.
The fact that we live in a place where these options are present should be enough to encourage everyone to shoot for a complete education. I don't want to start a thing here, but I just can't listen to another argument from someone that comes along in business and is upset that there's a set of house rules already in place and they're not getting the special consideration they deserve. I guess I've just heard the plaintive cry of one too many a misunderstood genius. If you really think that the business can't do without you, then threaten to leave and lay it on the line. If you're really worth what you think you're worth, they'll pay you that much and you won't have to leave after all.
I expect the free market to work. If he doesn't want to work for less than $75k, he shouldn't have to. I don't want to, I'll tell you that. On the other hand, if they send off all the CS jobs to India, and that does turn out to be cheaper (which it may not be after all is said and done), then I'm for that too. Even though it hurts me and my ability to earn, it is good for the country and good for India to direct our resources where we can get the most bang for the buck. I don't like it either, but speaking the truth on this issue is patriotic and I'm a patriot. (If you don't believe that directing our resources to India if it is indeed cheaper is better for the US as well as India, you need to read a basic economics primer for the layman. Try out Naked Economics...you'll also learn why sweatshops in third world countries are a perfectly ethical practice.)
As for me, I have a good degree from a top school, and I might find myself in a situation where I need to pursue an even more advanced degree. So what, I'm not going to whine about going into debt. After all, every study consistently shows that education is the one investment that always pays back a higher return than any other.
What you say is true...there are exceptional cases where people can be good software engineers even though they don't have college degrees. But so what? This is a numbers game, and getting through college nowadays is a badge that means you can reasonably stick through and complete a long-term goal at a relatively young age. That's important...it means you were forged in an environment that allowed you to balance your personal life with a work load (not a terribly tough one) and carry off both.
Your argument by example (5 examples, actually) is just flawed logic. By that argument, I could say the same thing about being a billionaire--Gates didn't complete college, therefore it's reasonable to expect that billionaires do not generally have degrees. But this would be wrong...most billionaires do have college degrees.
That's how companies look at hiring. They want to mitigate their risk. They interview someone, and that person seems good (interviews are notoriously bad ways of judging how people are going to perform on a job, except the part where they talk to past employers and consider your past experience, or the guy walks in and has an obvious chip on his shoulder), but they're still pretty worried about whether he'll perform when he walks out. So say they hire two guys, one with a degree and one without and they both turn out to be disasters. How does the manager that hired the guy without explain the hiring decision to his boss? The boss'll say, "What were you thinking, this guy doesn't even have a college degree!"
You could keep living in the clouds and say the manager should patiently explain to his boss his view that college degrees don't really matter...except that's totally wrong. Remember, we're not talking about the exceptional case here, we're talking about a numbers game, and whether you like it or not, it is generally true that people with degrees will, on the average, outperform people without.
In discussions like this it's common for people to pay so much attention to the exceptional cases that they forget they're still dealing with exceptional cases.
Having said that, I think your way of looking at things has become increasingly popular over the last generation or two. This is because in the 50s, 60s, and 70s having a college degree meant more than it does today. It was difficult to get one. Now the average university has become a rubber stamp mill that just passes students through. The average bachelors degree student today knows less than the average high school graduate of the 1950s. Jobs like engineer, architect, etc, didn't used to require college degrees for this reason.
Now college is necessary because our public schools are in decline and have been for several decades (my journal entry on public school). As the teachers unions force one decision-by-committee on the system after another, things get worse and worse and all the good teachers get driven into other professions. Couple this with the sense of entitlement that most people in the US have nowadays about education ("my child has a RIGHT to an education whether he works hard or not!") and you get the current situation, where everyone must have college degrees just to prove they're smart enough to breathe. This is why the top 20 or so college institutions of each particular field, that have managed to retain their previous high standards, are so sought after.
It's funny that most people think the way you do about programming, that it's not bound to any kind of physical world and therefore that means that there are no "natural" constraints. That's wrong in my estimation.
CS is a largely mathematical pursuit. Math is not really bound to the physical universe, it's just a giant theoretical model based on numbers, operations, and rules. But those elements must all work together to be consistent and complete. Good software design, which I rarely see, works under the same principles of completeness and consistency. In fact, CS started out as a mathematical discipline with guys like Turing and Godel making contributions even before the notion of the modern day computer even existed. It's sad that CS people in college don't even know the background of CS so they really don't consider CS a math-type discipline. When you get into the advanced mathematics of CS and you see things like Design by Contract and predicate calculus get involved, it becomes clear. These are things that ought to be touched upon in every undergrad's experience, even if the details can't be explored.
The good CS programs stress this relationship between computers and math. Maybe this is why CS degrees are important to most employers.
Ok, apparently my post uses too many big words for you to handle it. Fine, then, don't read it...check the word over at dictionary.com, feel humiliated when you realize you're wrong, and then I'll accept your apology. :p
You probably already know you're wrong, though...I notice you posted AC.
Actually, no. It's not obvious. Click on my sig and read up on what irony is.
What he said isn't ironic...it's just funny.
There's such a thing as an "open letter" to the Linux community. In this most vitriolic of political campaigns, I've seen the open letter resurge in popularity. Partisan groups write open letters to Hillary Clinton supporters, Nader supporters, Kerry and Bush supporters most definitely, anti-war people, etc.
Sometimes these are couched in terms of being an open letter to the person specifically, as in "An Open Letter to Ralph Nader"...but it's not really to him. It's really intended to be directed to a bunch of unorganized Nader supporters. And I believe the tradition with these things is that they can be picked up and republished anywhere if they are understood to be "open" as the term is intended. So nothing would stop the big OSS supporters like Stallman from throwing it up on their websites.
If I were angling to be difficult, I would argue that the marketshare-driven difficulties associated with owning and driving a DeLorean, when all is said and done, is why many people in fact don't consider them "ready to be driven," at least driven by themselves.
See, the responses to your question below are exactly the problem with linux. You made a compelling argument for why linux can't take over the desktop unless it becomes more user-friendly, and the response you get? Of course you can have it log in automatically. You mean to say you didn't know that a CS student in Sweden recently published a series of replacement libraries that you can install after recompiling the kernel? All you have to do is wade through the configuration text files and employ this particular fluke of his desktop management software that allows what you're trying to do! Duh!!!
Of course I'm exaggerating to make the point. But the point remains: it's not about whether it can be done. Anything can be done...it's all just moving bits in a chip.
In the olden days, I understand when someone complained that they're *nix box couldn't do something in a research lab somewhere in the world, the standard response was: "Hey dum-dum. All you have to do is write a short C program yourself that does X, Y, and Z. Duh!" This is still true today...except Grammy-Maw's not writing a C program, man. If her options are: (1) write a C program, (2) keep abreast of every CS student's contributions to open source, or (3) use Windows, which option is Grammy-Maw going to choose, do you think?
And before a /. loudmouth responds with the snarky and ever-counterproductive, "Don't use Linux, then!" take a look at this thread first, in particular the "Care to write it?" comment and everything by user killjoe.
I agree that Linux has many obstacles to overcome to be competitive with Windows. We can argue about the specific points you made and rebutted from the article, but the broad strokes of your response are correct. Most people aren't going to deal with the peculiarities of Linux whether they're better or not if they don't have to deal with the equivalent ones in Windows for whatever reason.
Check out my journal entry for an argument that looks more at the broader issues rather than a specific point-by-point. Also, the points you make are a perfect rebuttal to killjoe's comments of the Moving to Linux thread a while back.
It's as if you were sent from above to prove my point.
For anyone reading this thread, read the above post carefully. The sentiment expressed above is the most corrosive thing to Linux that could possibly be said, and I hear it enough that it ought to be worrisome to anyone that wants Linux to succeed.
This is the attitude holding Linux and all open source back: We don't need users. It's their job to adapt to the software, it's not the software's job to adapt to them. This is one of the unique advantages that business enjoys over open source...in business, you're free to think the same way right up until the profit motive has your boss telling you to adapt the software or get fired. Unfortunately, without that profit motive, there's no limiting factor on this damn-the-customer attitude.
How many people use Linux on the home desktop, percentage-wise? Apparently enough for you, killjoe...everyone else, in your words, "isn't capable of running Linux." Too bad 98% of the home market isn't capable and you don't feel making it accessible to them is important. If your approach wins, Microsoft will always dominate the home desktop.
People like you, killjoe, don't understand that if you like Linux now, with the support that it currently enjoys, you'll love it if it gets a significant chunk of the home market. The advantages of Linux and its business model will go on steroids if only the OS could build critical mass. You're too focused on the good aspects that Linux currently possesses, to the extent you've lost sight of what it could be.
You misunderstand me, I think. I too am willing to give Linux the latitude for the learning curve...it's just that I can't afford to. It's too high, and I don't have the time.
If you scroll down and see my response to loudmouth, you'll see I'm a developer and I work in Linux all the time. I just don't have time to admin the darn thing. I truly hope the new distros take care of all these problems and are truly easy to use and configure...I won't know for a bit until I get time to replace the old installations I have running right now. And I've learned not to make time for these projects if it interferes with my life too much...I've been burned too many times before.
I haven't installed it in three years, dum-dum. I run it every day. I'm a software engineer by trade and I do most of my development in *nix-based platforms.
At home I have four boxes, 3 of which are Linux. I only have time to keep one up to date, though--the Windows box. Less doc to read, less discussion boards to visit, less to mess with all around. I don't particularly like it, but I can't afford the time to become an expert in adminning my own box, and I can't afford to hire someone else to do it like I have at work.
They still run...I just run into roadblocks and then they sit until I have time to figure it out. Sometimes that roadblock is something I really need to get done, so I move over to Windows. I'm not a casual Linux user, and I'm in software full time by trade. I could figure it out--I could figure anything computer-related out--given the time. I've been working with Linux on and off for about 6 years now, I think I've given it enough of a go.
Now that you realize you've put your foot in it, have a look at my journal entry on the problems people have with Linux, and then maybe you'll be qualified to comment on my thoughts.
I was waiting for at least one /. loudmouth to come along and start shooting it off. Not one to disappoint, I see. I hate it when people are so committed to some lofty ideal that they get blinded to every statement that conflicts with that ideal. It's not good for you, and it's not good for Linux, so knock it off.
Well, but I don't think it's useful to dismiss these kinds of comments about Linux not being easy to use. It's true.
Here's an example...when you have to install an app from a tarball. What's a tarball? It's an aggregated set of files in a tar, for tape archive. No one uses tapes anymore. No one that has this bit of knowledge will necessarily understand the two phase process of aggregating files and then zipping them. No one really deals with zips anymore in the Windows world...now they have installation executables.
Linux has that too, and that's fine. But can you completely run a Linux system and flex it in all different ways without being a C programmer, or dealing with tarballs, or any of the other myriad arcane activities that Linux home admins eventually find themselves doing?
I dunno. Maybe. I haven't installed a Linux system for about 3 years, so maybe they've made great strides in this regard. But if they have, I'd have to point out that no one's really waging a campaign to make sure I know about it.
I'll include my standard caveat with this post. I like Linux, I like what it stands for and what it represents. I like the functionality, the apps, the free software...I like it all. Theoretically, I like it all. In the real world, though, I find myself running Windows. I keep meaning to run Linux up, and someday I will once more. But every time I run into a major problem, I revert back to Windows for a while until I get the time to forge back into Linux. Could I solve these problems and stay true to the Linux ideal? Sure...but I have a life outside of hacking my box.
Actually, it's not like complaining about kids at all. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of anyone specially modifying their kids to make them louder.
I love Firefox too since I started using it a few weeks ago. Only one question, though...to be considered in competitions like this, doesn't there have to be at least a 1.0 version? I mean, one could argue the playing field isn't level if it's not at 1.0 because it's not the officially, full-featured release version yet. What if Firefox 1.0 includes a bunch of bugs or implements requirements that make it far less desirable to use?
Well, I don't think quitting is necessarily the answer for everyone...
I found that as I did more programming at work, my interests in programming diverged to cover the surrounding areas...architecture, design, business analysis, QA, quality processes like Six Sigma, development processes (RUP, XP, Agile, etc). The stuff outside the pure coding started to affect the work I did, and I wanted as much control over it as possible because the effects weren't always positive. Not only did I find my interests in programming run deeper than just knowing a language (OOA&D, architecture...interesting stuff!) but it also helped in my career to understand what everyone else's function in the chain is.
So at home, I kept hacking on this thing and that thing, but that did begin to fall by the wayside and I found myself reading up on these other topics. Even so, occasionally my interest in all things technical just switches off.
In that downtime, I look into various other things and discover various other hobbies. Photography is my latest thing, for now. Just poke around and try different things...a lot of figuring out what to do with yourself is just experimenting and dabbling in a bit of everything. Most of the time, you'll say, "Wow. Don't ever want to do that again." Occasionally you'll discover something you are genuinely interested in.
I heard that the adoption of the term blue moon in modern usage actually stems from a misappropriation of the term from some Native American tribe (around the time frame you mention, early 19th C). The term, as far as my uninformed and caffeine-addled mind can conjure at the moment, originally referred to an occurrence of a particular full moon that occurred during the three-month harvest season; specifically, when four moons occurred during this three month season, the third of the sequence was called a "blue moon". (The Wikipedia entry seems to make reference to this--see the second entry--but I can't find anything specific on it. Also, it doesn't seem to mention the "harvest" season, just any season, which is not what I heard from my unreliable source.)
This is why our concept of blue moon as the second in a month doesn't seem to make sense in terms of rarity...it's not that rare. It makes a bit more sense if we consider how often four moons occur during the three month harvest season. That was probably quite a bit more rare.
So am I not supposed to notice the guy who lives down the block from me and tunes his bike up every other weekend? Does it not matter that every other Saturday from about 10am to noon I have to listen to braAAAAaaaaAAAp braAAAAaaaaP vRROOOOOM?
I don't care what happens to the guy on the highway. I managed to solve the same problem through a series of choices without causing noise pollution anywhere, at any time. So should he.