1) People would quit screwing with programmers, telling us we need to evolve into "software engineers." All that that ever does is add paperwork and make my job harder. A bunch of people come in, who don't know how to do our jobs, and tell us to do it differently, because it will make us engineers.
Ok, maybe you read too much into the term "software engineer". I think we can agree on what software is. Let's just say "engineer" means to carefully design. I'd guestimate that 90% of the software in use today does not measure up to this. I feel this is often due to pseudo-programmers hacking at work instead of carefully designing their programs. Sure some tools suck, I had to use Rational Rose for a couple years, but that does not mean all tools are bad or that "engineering" software is a bad idea. How many programmers do you know that even use lint these days?
Now, not all of this is the individual programmers fault, our colleges do a piss poor job of making real programmers. I came into programming via the military (who actually "engineer" their stuff (at least when it matters, some crap exists in trivial systems)). When we were learning to program we hand wrote PDL and flowcharts for all of our stuff, and then "played computer" to make sure it was right before we ever got to submit the job to the computer. We learned the basic programming primitives, data structures (linked lists, stacks, queues, etc), etc with PDL and flowcharting and then almost as an afterthought they taught us Assembly, Cobol, and ADA and kicked us out the door.
Now, I've been out for a few years and I decided to use the GIBILL to finish my degree. I kinda expected the same "teach the basics" type currriculum. I was wrong. You go straight from "this is a computer, this is a mouse" to "Intro to programming with C++" with absolutely no emphasis on actual design work, program flow, etc. Needless to say the result is painful to see.
As far as paperwork goes, that comes with the territory. You need paperwork (design documents, dataflow diagrams, etc). These documents need to be part of your process, and they need to be used, discussed, redone, etc. I could always tell if an organization was serious about their software engineering efforts by the types of documents they generated, and how they were handled. If they gave a shit the documents were "just done" during the process of analyzing the system, and designing the software. If they didn't then the programmer would hack out the code and then do the docs as an after thought. I've got to admit, I've been in both environments, and I've done it both ways, but I never thought it was "OK" to do it the wrong way, or wished they would "leave me alone" when they were trying to set me straight.
As far as the "bunch of people" who "don't know your job" go, I expect that seamstresses probably feel the same when a designer sends in a new design. You don't have to be a programmer to be able to point out a shitty process and recommend fixes, it'd probably help if you were, but I don't think it should be some requirement. Kinda like you don't have to be a programmer to manage programmers (and generally, in my experience life is better for everyone concerned if your manager is a manager and not a programmer.)
2) It would raise the level of quality within the field. If everyone was held to the same standards when they came into the field, there would be some minimum level of knowledge required to start out. Good. Now I won't have some putz without a clue telling me my code isn't up to snuff.
Plenty of people have tried here's one that has been around for quite awhile: http://www.iccp.org/ I expect that they have probably failed because:
I thought we outsourced your sorry ass months ago.
If all you can do is bang on a keyboard then you are expendable.
You need to grow up and realize "code monkey's" are a thing of the past, and the "good old days" were not always good.
We need people who can analyze systems, and design solutions. Not people who whine and cry about it when management tries to fix the process of writing software.
1. The western Ice shelf is ALREADY floating, so, if it disconnected what would happen? (hint: nothing) Try to remember there is a difference between ice sheets and ice shelfs.
2. The Eastern sheet (the big one) is ringed by mountains and won't be falling into the sea anytime soon (read: MANY (1000's) centuries).
3. As the sea warms, more water will be in the clouds and that will support more snow in this region which cause more accumulation (you should have learned this in grade school, it is dry there because it is too cold) Why do you zealots never allow for feedback in this system?
4. Much of the "riseing" sea level is really the sinking of the edges of crust plates as the area under old glaciers raise (put a ruler across a pencil to visualize this effect)
5. From your own sources the increase in sea level is 0.16 millimeters/yr. If you can't live with this and plan accordingly I fail to see how this is anyone's problem but yours. Hell, normal sea erosion would account for hundreds of times the effect this will.
6. I will agree that temperature is rising a tiny bit (much of the "apparent" rise is the result of heat islands though). And Glaciers/sheets are melting. This is normal in the later stages of recovery from the last ice age. The one truth to climate research is that there is no stability, it has always, and will always change.
7. I don't think we should ruin the world's economies on hair brained ideas. Even if there are NO feedback mechanisms (hmmm, if it got warmer, and there was more CO2 available wouldn't plants grow better and convert more CO2 into O?) we will be more prepared to face/fix these issues in 500-1000 years when they become problematic. Imagine if we had seen this coming 1000 years ago and banned anything that released CO2 then? Given the pace of change over the last 100 years I doubt any of us can even imagine what we will see technologically in 100 years, much less in 1000. maybe you don't buy this position, but it proved Malthus wrong.
Of course, back then climate research was marginally less political since Clinton had already declared global warming to be caused by human influences (it is funny how otherwise intelligent people throw the scientific method out the window on this topic...The whole "greenhouse gas" panic is the finest example of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' logic (err illogic) I have ever witnessed.)
If you really care about this debate from a scientific perspective you should read Dr. Sallie Baliunas (who has real credentials as opposed to many of the chicken little crowd who in the April 28, 1975 issue warned us that we were causing the next ice age and semi-advocated melting the polar ice caps by covering them with black soot)
Besides, if there was a real consensus about CO2 being at fault Kyoto would have been about reducing CO2 emissions and not about redistributing US wealth by having us "buy pollution credits" from third world countries.
I've worked my way through his "masterpieces", and I have to wonder if they were ever "quite useful" (except of course for bookends, paperweights, and impressing non-technical bosses.)
Yea, exactly that, only they do not have a transaction number, and my bank shows no attempt to bill this to my account (which has more then enough to cover this).
I smell a rat. I guess I can just make sure I NEVER do business with these people.
You do not have to implement something to patent it. Although, it (the patent system) would be better if you did.
You could use this post as prior art, not that it would matter. What you describe is half the point to having Bluetooth. Unfortunately no vendors seem real hot on makeing affordable devices in this modular manner.
Just buy her one too. You'd be surprised, I bought my wife a Palm III a couple years ago. She uses it for everything. In fact, she uses it at least 10x more then I use mine. I saw this deal and bought 2.
Now I'm golden when they arrive. Add a wifi cf card to it, and I'm set for her birthday!
You're right, "researchers" with "moral objections" are annoying...
Hello? You posted this using the Internet DARPA funded. The funding source does not determine the intrinsic value of the endevour.
You have to ask yourself "Is the research good for society?" That's it. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. Ultimately it came from your pocket. If the science is good, take the money. Pseudomoralistic standpoints never get anyone anywhere. Your research will creep along without the $40,000,000. DARPA WILL find someone else to do their research, and society as a whole would be the only one punished since we will have to wait longer to enjoy the fruits of your "best in the area" expertise.
Hell, if Saddam wanted to fund $40,000,000 worth of cancer research I'd take his money with a smile and a thanks.
Exactly, but here in the US we LIKE to have hundreds of pointless additional laws.
Let's examine Assult.
You hit someone with a stick = Assult
You hit your wife with a stick = Spouse Abuse
You hit someone with a stick who is not exactly like you = Hate Crime
Maybe it makes people feel better, or maybe it just keeps the lawyers in business keeping track of these new categories.
You know the sad part about this is that I am originally from Wyoming, and I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming actually downloading a rap song once, much less 188 times...I thought we had better taste then that.
Well....It IS, that is what is wrong with this arguement. Our world is connected. There is no avoiding it.
Some Examples:
1. You support terrorism: You go to the local grocery store and buy milk and beer. The store pays their employees, one of whom is a heroin user. He buys heroin from a local dealer who buys his from an importer who buys it from an organization that supports terrorism. Therefore you shouldn't drink milk and beer because it supports terrorism indirectly. huh?
2. You support terrorism some more (have you no shame?): You take the bus downtown. The bus runs on gas, the gas is bought from a station that buys its gas from a distributer that buys it from a refiner who buys it from an importer who buys it from Saudi Arabia. One of the Saudi employees of the oil company contributes money to a terrorist supporting organization. Again, you support terrorism indirectly.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, maybe you read too much into the term "software engineer". I think we can agree on what software is. Let's just say "engineer" means to carefully design. I'd guestimate that 90% of the software in use today does not measure up to this. I feel this is often due to pseudo-programmers hacking at work instead of carefully designing their programs. Sure some tools suck, I had to use Rational Rose for a couple years, but that does not mean all tools are bad or that "engineering" software is a bad idea. How many programmers do you know that even use lint these days?
Now, not all of this is the individual programmers fault, our colleges do a piss poor job of making real programmers. I came into programming via the military (who actually "engineer" their stuff (at least when it matters, some crap exists in trivial systems)). When we were learning to program we hand wrote PDL and flowcharts for all of our stuff, and then "played computer" to make sure it was right before we ever got to submit the job to the computer. We learned the basic programming primitives, data structures (linked lists, stacks, queues, etc), etc with PDL and flowcharting and then almost as an afterthought they taught us Assembly, Cobol, and ADA and kicked us out the door.
Now, I've been out for a few years and I decided to use the GIBILL to finish my degree. I kinda expected the same "teach the basics" type currriculum. I was wrong. You go straight from "this is a computer, this is a mouse" to "Intro to programming with C++" with absolutely no emphasis on actual design work, program flow, etc. Needless to say the result is painful to see.
As far as paperwork goes, that comes with the territory. You need paperwork (design documents, dataflow diagrams, etc). These documents need to be part of your process, and they need to be used, discussed, redone, etc. I could always tell if an organization was serious about their software engineering efforts by the types of documents they generated, and how they were handled. If they gave a shit the documents were "just done" during the process of analyzing the system, and designing the software. If they didn't then the programmer would hack out the code and then do the docs as an after thought. I've got to admit, I've been in both environments, and I've done it both ways, but I never thought it was "OK" to do it the wrong way, or wished they would "leave me alone" when they were trying to set me straight.
As far as the "bunch of people" who "don't know your job" go, I expect that seamstresses probably feel the same when a designer sends in a new design. You don't have to be a programmer to be able to point out a shitty process and recommend fixes, it'd probably help if you were, but I don't think it should be some requirement. Kinda like you don't have to be a programmer to manage programmers (and generally, in my experience life is better for everyone concerned if your manager is a manager and not a programmer.)
Plenty of people have tried here's one that has been around for quite awhile: http://www.iccp.org/
I expect that they have probably failed because:
You're pathetic.
I thought we outsourced your sorry ass months ago.
If all you can do is bang on a keyboard then you are expendable.
You need to grow up and realize "code monkey's" are a thing of the past, and the "good old days" were not always good.
We need people who can analyze systems, and design solutions. Not people who whine and cry about it when management tries to fix the process of writing software.
I fully expect your code is not "up to snuff"
Dan
Spending all of my karma in one shot!
1. Linkin Park is definately not popular in "geek culture".. html
2. Linkin Park already comes on copy protected cd's according to this: http://fatchucks.com/z3.cd.linkinpark.reanimation
Dan
Cool, as for me, after watching a couple of episodes of Star Trek my acting skills just went to hell. :-)
Dan
California also has some of their own additions, if you live there look into them.
4 1/29CFR541.3.htm
http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Part_5
Not many people outside of operations environments are non-exempt in IT. As such, they are paid for their skill, and not their time.
Dan
Ok, verify these:
1. The western Ice shelf is ALREADY floating, so, if it disconnected what would happen? (hint: nothing) Try to remember there is a difference between ice sheets and ice shelfs.
2. The Eastern sheet (the big one) is ringed by mountains and won't be falling into the sea anytime soon (read: MANY (1000's) centuries).
3. As the sea warms, more water will be in the clouds and that will support more snow in this region which cause more accumulation (you should have learned this in grade school, it is dry there because it is too cold) Why do you zealots never allow for feedback in this system?
4. Much of the "riseing" sea level is really the sinking of the edges of crust plates as the area under old glaciers raise (put a ruler across a pencil to visualize this effect)
5. From your own sources the increase in sea level is 0.16 millimeters/yr. If you can't live with this and plan accordingly I fail to see how this is anyone's problem but yours. Hell, normal sea erosion would account for hundreds of times the effect this will.
6. I will agree that temperature is rising a tiny bit (much of the "apparent" rise is the result of heat islands though). And Glaciers/sheets are melting. This is normal in the later stages of recovery from the last ice age. The one truth to climate research is that there is no stability, it has always, and will always change.
7. I don't think we should ruin the world's economies on hair brained ideas. Even if there are NO feedback mechanisms (hmmm, if it got warmer, and there was more CO2 available wouldn't plants grow better and convert more CO2 into O?) we will be more prepared to face/fix these issues in 500-1000 years when they become problematic. Imagine if we had seen this coming 1000 years ago and banned anything that released CO2 then? Given the pace of change over the last 100 years I doubt any of us can even imagine what we will see technologically in 100 years, much less in 1000. maybe you don't buy this position, but it proved Malthus wrong.
Dan
"They know it'll rather-likely mean a 6m or 7m increase in ocean-level."
And did Major League Baseball plant this in your head?
I'll bet you are close to this guy.
Dan
Preview, damn you preview. That citation was Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
sorry
Dan
The BBC had this story in 1998.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
Of course, back then climate research was marginally less political since Clinton had already declared global warming to be caused by human influences (it is funny how otherwise intelligent people throw the scientific method out the window on this topic...The whole "greenhouse gas" panic is the finest example of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' logic (err illogic) I have ever witnessed.)
If you really care about this debate from a scientific perspective you should read Dr. Sallie Baliunas (who has real credentials as opposed to many of the chicken little crowd who in the April 28, 1975 issue warned us that we were causing the next ice age and semi-advocated melting the polar ice caps by covering them with black soot)
Besides, if there was a real consensus about CO2 being at fault Kyoto would have been about reducing CO2 emissions and not about redistributing US wealth by having us "buy pollution credits" from third world countries.
Dan
I've worked my way through his "masterpieces", and I have to wonder if they were ever "quite useful" (except of course for bookends, paperweights, and impressing non-technical bosses.)
Dan
If you want to see the UNIX sources:
Lions' Commentary on Unix 6th Edition with Source Code by John Lions
ISBN: 1573980137
Dan
I've got a 286 Military surplus metal encased, amber screen "GridBook" I'll sell you. :-)
Dan
Yea, exactly that, only they do not have a transaction number, and my bank shows no attempt to bill this to my account (which has more then enough to cover this).
I smell a rat. I guess I can just make sure I NEVER do business with these people.
Dan
IANAL, but...
You do not have to implement something to patent it. Although, it (the patent system) would be better if you did.
You could use this post as prior art, not that it would matter. What you describe is half the point to having Bluetooth. Unfortunately no vendors seem real hot on makeing affordable devices in this modular manner.
Dan
Just buy her one too. You'd be surprised, I bought my wife a Palm III a couple years ago. She uses it for everything. In fact, she uses it at least 10x more then I use mine. I saw this deal and bought 2.
Now I'm golden when they arrive. Add a wifi cf card to it, and I'm set for her birthday!
Dan
You're right, "researchers" with "moral objections" are annoying...
Hello? You posted this using the Internet DARPA funded. The funding source does not determine the intrinsic value of the endevour.
You have to ask yourself "Is the research good for society?" That's it. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. Ultimately it came from your pocket. If the science is good, take the money. Pseudomoralistic standpoints never get anyone anywhere. Your research will creep along without the $40,000,000. DARPA WILL find someone else to do their research, and society as a whole would be the only one punished since we will have to wait longer to enjoy the fruits of your "best in the area" expertise.
Hell, if Saddam wanted to fund $40,000,000 worth of cancer research I'd take his money with a smile and a thanks.
Dan
Exactly, but here in the US we LIKE to have hundreds of pointless additional laws.
Let's examine Assult.
You hit someone with a stick = Assult
You hit your wife with a stick = Spouse Abuse
You hit someone with a stick who is not exactly like you = Hate Crime
Maybe it makes people feel better, or maybe it just keeps the lawyers in business keeping track of these new categories.
Dan
Interesting? Watching 100,000,000 over-fat under-washed geeks with glazed eyes picking their noses (Yes, I saw you) is not my idea of interesting.
Dan
Dan
France was going to fix it, but they wanted to give the UN more time. So, as usual, the US has to do it. :-)
Dan
Hmmm....Think about it....Usenet...
30GB a day of grainy porn...
Why again do the terrorists need encryption?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/stego/
Dan
Yea! 5 years of lurking, first post as an AC! Who could have done it better?
Some people REALLY strive for neutral karma.
Dan
You know the sad part about this is that I am originally from Wyoming, and I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming actually downloading a rap song once, much less 188 times...I thought we had better taste then that.
Dan
Wierd, I can use my "scat" for whatever I want.
:-)
Dan
Well....It IS, that is what is wrong with this arguement. Our world is connected. There is no avoiding it.
Some Examples:
1. You support terrorism: You go to the local grocery store and buy milk and beer. The store pays their employees, one of whom is a heroin user. He buys heroin from a local dealer who buys his from an importer who buys it from an organization that supports terrorism. Therefore you shouldn't drink milk and beer because it supports terrorism indirectly. huh?
2. You support terrorism some more (have you no shame?): You take the bus downtown. The bus runs on gas, the gas is bought from a station that buys its gas from a distributer that buys it from a refiner who buys it from an importer who buys it from Saudi Arabia. One of the Saudi employees of the oil company contributes money to a terrorist supporting organization. Again, you support terrorism indirectly.
It's like that game "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon".
Dan