Re:A Still More Glorious Dawn (of some sort)
on
Carl Sagan Sings
·
· Score: 1
How odd that incredibly intelligent people who study nature on the grandest of scales refuse to acklowledge nature's most basic laws such as supply-and-demand of limited resources which create greed, jealousy, crime, class separation, etc.
I think you're reading into things and probably making them more complex than they are. I don't think our desire to survive has any implication that God, the Universe, or anything else but us wants that to happen.
We want to survive because that which continues to survive survives. So wanting to survive helps with that as the alternative is not wanting to survive and thus there are no offspring to further that suicidal trait. We want to spread into the cosmos because that which spreads out avoids localized cataclysms and continues to survive.
All other complexities arise from the fact that we compete with other external forces for survival. How we choose to express that stress on the system is highly dynamic. It can be through cooperation or competition. We can create classes with which we cooperate and those that we compete against. We can do all manner of things with the end goal always being to continue to exist.
We choose to be because to choose otherwise means and end of choice. We choose to spread out because to choose otherwise is to choose to be confined and confinement and restriction of resources leads to diminished chances for survival. We choose to go on because if we do not then there will be no more choice.
There is a reason "go forth and multiply" is the first command of God. Deep in our psyches we all know we must go forth and we must create the descendants that will continue on after us. Otherwise there will be no other thinking thing to wonder at the choice we made to go on and to ask why we bothered.
Correlation does not imply causation. Your "suburban kids" are probably deluded by the fact that the role models in their lives can succeed in society... your "inner city youth" probably have few positive role models in their lives who have succeeded and are mentoring them to the same success.
Correlation does not imply causation in either direction.
I think this might be like the "video games" cause violence argument. I think any reasonable person can see how it's not healthy to stare at violence all day everyday... it's also probably not healthy to stare at sex all day everyday... hell... it's probably not healthy to stare at slashdot all day everyday. Most obsessions are similarly destructive of people's lives.
"Not healthy" as in "nothing measurably bad ever really happens"? There are tons of violent video games playes all over the suburbs. Shouldn't there be all out gang warfare and school shooting every day? There isn't. In fact, I would say that the most violent teen gang members probably don't have as much access to those violent video games as the suburban kids do. But, they listen to that terrible ganger rap!... so do the suburban kids. In fact, I bet that *violence has nothing to do with 'violent' video games or music*!
Same goes for porn. There's porn all over the web and a whole new generation of young men are exposing themselves <ahem> to stuff that would be unimaginable to previous generations, but there isn't a new wave of insane rapes and sexual crimes. Perverts do the crimes regardless of what media their exposed to.
Also I'd like to welcome back the fella who was clearly on vacation. This is a good headline! Not like the other headline(s) we've been seeing around here. Glad to know you guys are back on the job making the news less boring and less accurate.
Thanks Slashdot! Keep up the insightful and inciteful work!
I believe they were actually looking for items with the tag "National Science Foundation Website" (nsfw), but found things they hadn't planned on.
Oh crud. I thought that NSFW did mean National Science Foundation Website! Grandma! Don't open those links I sent you!!! I've got to get to Florida ASAP!
Did he spend 331 days, or did he check at some point every day he was at work?
Once we get past "surfed porn at work", the number of hours seems more relvent than the number of days.
I think I agree. 331 consecutive days totaling 331 minutes total means inappropriate behavior and deserves censure of some kind. 331 days totaling thousands of hours probably means the person needs to get professional help for their sex addiction. Somewhere in the middle the person should be fired for goofing off on the job.
As for actual documentation? Some studies in the 70's and 80's showed domestic violence, rape, and childhood traumas can be linked to people with excessive exposure to porn. A few minutes with google scholar will point to relevant articles and avoid getting sucked down into the depraved depths.
I think this might be like the "video games" cause violence argument. I think any reasonable person can see how it's not healthy to stare at violence all day everyday... it's also probably not healthy to stare at sex all day everyday... hell... it's probably not healthy to stare at slashdot all day everyday. Most obsessions are similarly destructive of people's lives.
I think 300+ days a year looking at porn might be like the guy who drinks two pots of coffee a day. I think it's a symptom of something bad evolving in the person's life. Symptom... not root cause. I don't have a DSM IV in front of me but I'm fairly certain that behavior alone could get you a diagnosis.
IT != Computer Science && IT != Computer Engineering
You want the glory of being Linus Torvalds? I'm pretty sure that ain't IT at all kids. That's Computer Science/Engineering/Programming and that's not in the IT department.
... see! That's how you slashdot! That distorts the facts nicely and gets the attention. WTF? Why are you guys getting all accurate and boring in your headlines?
This is to say that if a unit test can reduce the cost of test resources TR and the cost of HM is lower based on the fact the code uses "known patterns" that requires less H (developer time to comprehend) then the value inside each "iteration" S(rHM + rTR) becomes smaller allowing for higher through put of features which should ostensibly increase the value of the software. Cost of rhD (hourly rate of initial developer) is inversely proportional to the cost incurred by HM during maintenance phase. The result is that cheaping out early on your initial developer yields a ball of shit that your HM guy hates and grumbles over causing his rHM value to climb costing more per feature. Eventually you will COMPLETELY fucking eclipse the cost saving found in using a cheap ass developer who doesn't know what a design pattern is or why they suck when they do suck and why they rock when the do rock (for design patterns simultaneously rock and suck depending on context... for example MVC ala Ruby on Rails totally rocks but sucks for messaging applications like Twitter).
Thusly most business managers usually create negative ROI by hiring cheap ass developers who screw over the HM and TR guys later who you manager types hire to keep the shit the hD guy created running because now your company is worth 25 majillion dollars and you can't have that application going down three times a day anymore. Later they continue to sky rocket the multiplier S buy calling bullshit on development practices intended to maximize the ROI of the system and okaying stupid ass development methods that waste developer time keeping them from actually adding to the value of the total system by reducing the total cost expressed in T.
In summary:
Managers don't understand code, they understand results, they understand quick results and they do not understand why eating a salad is preferable to eating a cheeseburger because the cheese burger is fried and gets to the table *now* and this design/salad bull crap takes too long. Then the managers get pissed at the developers because the cheeseburger/crappy code made them fat.
The ROI for this would look like:
M = cost of maintenance coder (M-coder) 1 hour
H = number of hours average M-coder spends grokking amazing Duct Tape guys answer
T = number of hours testing fix by M-coder to verify it works "right"
R = cost of tester per hour
S = average number of cycles spent between M and R
D = cost of duct tape coder per hour (D-coder)
h = number of average hours spent by D-coder on initial feature
C = cost of feature
O = maintenance cost of feature
T = total cost of feature
C = hD O = S(HM + TR)
T = hD + S(HM + TR).. Our optimization efforts would be scalars on h, H, and T expressed as rh, rH, and rT. So from this ROI can be summarized as:
ROI = T - ( rhD + S(rHM + rTR) )
Assuming no reductions can be made on the costs of D, M and R and that S cannot be effectively limited to reduce costs without incurring penalty to T. Solve for each 'r' independently. Most invariant cost appears it can be controlled on hD but in reality hD is inversely proportionate to the cost of HM.
Management does not see developers like a coach sees a basketball player. Management can't see the moves a developer has the same way a coach can see the moves a basketball player has. It's a hard thing to determine who the best writer of poetry is when you can't even read the language they write in and have never seen the things they write about. This is the fundamental problem with the management of developers... it is like an impedance mismatch.
If we knew his framework we could point him to the right tutorials. Good point. I'd be in utter shock if every major framework in existence didn't have at least one free online tutorial on how to implement Optimistic Locking in their system.
is a great book about this. Even if you don't use Hibernate or Java. If you hate Java just take the parts of the book dealing with Java and burn them. The rest of the book has awesome discussion of database design for the web... and those parts are worth the purchase price by themselves.
"Hibernate in Action" covers "Optimistic Locking" which is a simple technique. Just put a versionNumber column in every table and never let anyone insert any version number less than the one in the database... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimistic_locking... if you have another scheme... even if it is smarter and better than this in every conceivable way DO NOT DO IT without FIRST getting Optimistic Locking working.
Slashdot Mirror
the guy who drinks two pots of coffee a day.
Newb.
... smokes two pots of coffee a day?
How odd that incredibly intelligent people who study nature on the grandest of scales refuse to acklowledge nature's most basic laws such as supply-and-demand of limited resources which create greed, jealousy, crime, class separation, etc.
I think you're reading into things and probably making them more complex than they are. I don't think our desire to survive has any implication that God, the Universe, or anything else but us wants that to happen.
We want to survive because that which continues to survive survives. So wanting to survive helps with that as the alternative is not wanting to survive and thus there are no offspring to further that suicidal trait. We want to spread into the cosmos because that which spreads out avoids localized cataclysms and continues to survive.
All other complexities arise from the fact that we compete with other external forces for survival. How we choose to express that stress on the system is highly dynamic. It can be through cooperation or competition. We can create classes with which we cooperate and those that we compete against. We can do all manner of things with the end goal always being to continue to exist.
We choose to be because to choose otherwise means and end of choice. We choose to spread out because to choose otherwise is to choose to be confined and confinement and restriction of resources leads to diminished chances for survival. We choose to go on because if we do not then there will be no more choice.
There is a reason "go forth and multiply" is the first command of God. Deep in our psyches we all know we must go forth and we must create the descendants that will continue on after us. Otherwise there will be no other thinking thing to wonder at the choice we made to go on and to ask why we bothered.
Correlation does not imply causation. Your "suburban kids" are probably deluded by the fact that the role models in their lives can succeed in society ... your "inner city youth" probably have few positive role models in their lives who have succeeded and are mentoring them to the same success.
Correlation does not imply causation in either direction.
I think this might be like the "video games" cause violence argument. I think any reasonable person can see how it's not healthy to stare at violence all day everyday... it's also probably not healthy to stare at sex all day everyday... hell... it's probably not healthy to stare at slashdot all day everyday. Most obsessions are similarly destructive of people's lives.
"Not healthy" as in "nothing measurably bad ever really happens"? There are tons of violent video games playes all over the suburbs. Shouldn't there be all out gang warfare and school shooting every day? There isn't. In fact, I would say that the most violent teen gang members probably don't have as much access to those violent video games as the suburban kids do. But, they listen to that terrible ganger rap! ... so do the suburban kids. In fact, I bet that *violence has nothing to do with 'violent' video games or music*!
Same goes for porn. There's porn all over the web and a whole new generation of young men are exposing themselves <ahem> to stuff that would be unimaginable to previous generations, but there isn't a new wave of insane rapes and sexual crimes. Perverts do the crimes regardless of what media their exposed to.
I think that's what I said.
+1 interesting.
Also I'd like to welcome back the fella who was clearly on vacation. This is a good headline! Not like the other headline(s) we've been seeing around here. Glad to know you guys are back on the job making the news less boring and less accurate.
Thanks Slashdot! Keep up the insightful and inciteful work!
I believe they were actually looking for items with the tag "National Science Foundation Website" (nsfw), but found things they hadn't planned on.
Oh crud. I thought that NSFW did mean National Science Foundation Website! Grandma! Don't open those links I sent you!!! I've got to get to Florida ASAP!
Did he spend 331 days, or did he check at some point every day he was at work?
Once we get past "surfed porn at work", the number of hours seems more relvent than the number of days.
I think I agree. 331 consecutive days totaling 331 minutes total means inappropriate behavior and deserves censure of some kind. 331 days totaling thousands of hours probably means the person needs to get professional help for their sex addiction. Somewhere in the middle the person should be fired for goofing off on the job.
*lol* yeah. fych issues. Nasty.
As for actual documentation? Some studies in the 70's and 80's showed domestic violence, rape, and childhood traumas can be linked to people with excessive exposure to porn. A few minutes with google scholar will point to relevant articles and avoid getting sucked down into the depraved depths.
Google Scholar and arjounals
I think this might be like the "video games" cause violence argument. I think any reasonable person can see how it's not healthy to stare at violence all day everyday... it's also probably not healthy to stare at sex all day everyday... hell... it's probably not healthy to stare at slashdot all day everyday. Most obsessions are similarly destructive of people's lives.
I think 300+ days a year looking at porn might be like the guy who drinks two pots of coffee a day. I think it's a symptom of something bad evolving in the person's life. Symptom... not root cause. I don't have a DSM IV in front of me but I'm fairly certain that behavior alone could get you a diagnosis.
wait... which one can you get away with? What?
IT != Computer Science && IT != Computer Engineering
You want the glory of being Linus Torvalds? I'm pretty sure that ain't IT at all kids. That's Computer Science/Engineering/Programming and that's not in the IT department.
+10 insightful.
... see! That's how you slashdot! That distorts the facts nicely and gets the attention. WTF? Why are you guys getting all accurate and boring in your headlines?
I like this plan.
This is to say that if a unit test can reduce the cost of test resources TR and the cost of HM is lower based on the fact the code uses "known patterns" that requires less H (developer time to comprehend) then the value inside each "iteration" S(rHM + rTR) becomes smaller allowing for higher through put of features which should ostensibly increase the value of the software. Cost of rhD (hourly rate of initial developer) is inversely proportional to the cost incurred by HM during maintenance phase. The result is that cheaping out early on your initial developer yields a ball of shit that your HM guy hates and grumbles over causing his rHM value to climb costing more per feature. Eventually you will COMPLETELY fucking eclipse the cost saving found in using a cheap ass developer who doesn't know what a design pattern is or why they suck when they do suck and why they rock when the do rock (for design patterns simultaneously rock and suck depending on context... for example MVC ala Ruby on Rails totally rocks but sucks for messaging applications like Twitter).
Thusly most business managers usually create negative ROI by hiring cheap ass developers who screw over the HM and TR guys later who you manager types hire to keep the shit the hD guy created running because now your company is worth 25 majillion dollars and you can't have that application going down three times a day anymore. Later they continue to sky rocket the multiplier S buy calling bullshit on development practices intended to maximize the ROI of the system and okaying stupid ass development methods that waste developer time keeping them from actually adding to the value of the total system by reducing the total cost expressed in T.
In summary:
Managers don't understand code, they understand results, they understand quick results and they do not understand why eating a salad is preferable to eating a cheeseburger because the cheese burger is fried and gets to the table *now* and this design/salad bull crap takes too long. Then the managers get pissed at the developers because the cheeseburger/crappy code made them fat.
The ROI for this would look like:
M = cost of maintenance coder (M-coder) 1 hour
H = number of hours average M-coder spends grokking amazing Duct Tape guys answer
T = number of hours testing fix by M-coder to verify it works "right"
R = cost of tester per hour
S = average number of cycles spent between M and R
D = cost of duct tape coder per hour (D-coder)
h = number of average hours spent by D-coder on initial feature
C = cost of feature
O = maintenance cost of feature
T = total cost of feature
C = hD
O = S(HM + TR)
T = hD + S(HM + TR) ..
Our optimization efforts would be scalars on h, H, and T expressed as rh, rH, and rT. So from this ROI can be summarized as:
ROI = T - ( rhD + S(rHM + rTR) )
Assuming no reductions can be made on the costs of D, M and R and that S cannot be effectively limited to reduce costs without incurring penalty to T. Solve for each 'r' independently. Most invariant cost appears it can be controlled on hD but in reality hD is inversely proportionate to the cost of HM.
Management does not see developers like a coach sees a basketball player. Management can't see the moves a developer has the same way a coach can see the moves a basketball player has. It's a hard thing to determine who the best writer of poetry is when you can't even read the language they write in and have never seen the things they write about. This is the fundamental problem with the management of developers... it is like an impedance mismatch.
If we knew his framework we could point him to the right tutorials. Good point. I'd be in utter shock if every major framework in existence didn't have at least one free online tutorial on how to implement Optimistic Locking in their system.
Heh. I'm going to post it again after all. http://grails.org/doc/1.0.x/guide/single.html#5.3.5%20Pessimistic%20and%20Optimistic%20Locking - leans on the underlying J2EE to accomplish this. A good framework should provide at least the underpinnings for this and I'm in total shock that people even *start* development today without knowing this stuff.
Awesome post. I like the description here: http://grails.org/doc/1.0.x/guide/single.html#5.3.5%20Pessimistic%20and%20Optimistic%20Locking but it is lacking the performance analysis commentary you have made.
For the record this is called: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimistic_locking
is a great book about this. Even if you don't use Hibernate or Java. If you hate Java just take the parts of the book dealing with Java and burn them. The rest of the book has awesome discussion of database design for the web... and those parts are worth the purchase price by themselves.
"Hibernate in Action" covers "Optimistic Locking" which is a simple technique. Just put a versionNumber column in every table and never let anyone insert any version number less than the one in the database... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimistic_locking ... if you have another scheme... even if it is smarter and better than this in every conceivable way DO NOT DO IT without FIRST getting Optimistic Locking working.
I wonder if people would call grep bloated or out of date...
you're right. I totally screwed that up... should read: "I has met the enemy and he is us!"
Some of us are so stupid we think feature rich and bloated aren't necessarily synonymous.
I've met the enemy and they is us.