The Avengers is a different case. It had a strong director with writing chops who had a good enough reputation to shrug off studio manipulation had that occurred.
Disney won't be making new Star Wars films for us, the existing fanbase. They'd be making them for their prime demographic. They'd be crazy not to, after having dropped that much cash for the franchise. So the stories will be sweet and not too scary and have a bunch of kids in the cast and probably have songs. We are not looking at some expanded universe or novels realized on the screen, we're looking at something more in line with The Ewok Adventure. We all need to get used to that, or opening day is going to be a huge disappointment.
Dude, do you think energy companies would be trying to squeeze gas out of rocks i.e. fracking if oil wasn't running out? Face it, oil has peaked. Since 2000 how have gas prices been? Any wars in oil rich regions? Hmmm, yeah, seems like this oil thing could be on the way out...
You're comparing apples and muffler bolts. The US is sitting on large amounts of oil. For one reason or another (environmental lawsuits, short-sighted politicians, and that it's easier to buy from someone else) we haven't exploited it yet. Natural gas and the whole fracking thing is a different issue. It's not used out of desperation, but because it's relatively easy to do.
> What is the core of the organization value? Maybe fixing an intern application is not worth it over losing one of its prominent members?
That is absolutely true. And given that, the solution is to live with the situation as-is. But if that is truly the situation, why are we trying to solve the guy's problem?
I get this from my wife all the time. (Background: She decided years ago that we keep our finances separate, and I have agreed to that.)
"My car's check engine light is on."
"Autozone will read the code for free."
"I don't have money to fix it."
"It might be simple, like a loose gas cap."
"But it might be expensive."
"True, but you won't know until you have it checked."
"But if it's expensive, I can't afford to fix it right now."
"But at least you'd know what the problem is, and again, it might be something simple."
"Well, I don't have time to go over there."
"It takes less than five minutes to do the check. And you drive right by it on the way to work."
"I don't like talking to them."
Sigh. "OK, enjoy your check engine light. Maybe it'll go off by itself."
> Are you trying to punish Bob or implement new system?
I'm trying to solve the problem. Parenthetically, I don't see "implementing a new system" as the problem. A set of functionality is needed, and the current system does not supply it. That is the real problem. Phrasing "implementing a new system" as the problem is not useful. That is, instead, a possible solution.
It was stipulated that Bob would not support moving to a new system. The current system is inadequate to the point where people refuse to use it. One could decide not do anything about it, but if so, why bring it up in slashdot? For commiseration? Geeks tend not to do that.
So the choices are:
(1) Convince or overrule Bob and move to a new system.
Risk: Bob quits. Before pulling that trigger, research your options.
(2) Convince Bob to fix the current system.
(2a) Bob sees the easiest path as changing his vote to support the move to the new system, problem solved.
(2b) Bob fixes the current system, problem solved.
Risk: Bob quits. See (1)
(3) This is unlikely, but you could get someone skilled in web apps to fix Bob's code for him. This will almost certainly cause Bob to quit, so I didn't originally include it.
Those are your choices. If you want commiseration, talk to Oprah. If those choices don't work, you have in effect decided to live with the problem, and should quit complaining about it.
When tackling a problem, it's important to avoid "painting yourself into a corner syndrome". Stating a problem, and then refusing to consider any solution that has any risk whatsoever, is a good example of that. If you want to stand in a corner surrounded by wet paint, that is your right. But don't tell me your problems if you're going to refuse to consider solutions.
Just as well, because if they ever did get off their planet they would be able to beat us. (their ships would out maneuver ours , they would have faster reflexes, and we wouldn't have a chance in hand to claw combat
At some point, one of the following will happen: (a) Bob will quit. While not ideal, this gives you the opportunity to bring someone in to dump the content out of his code, sort it, drop old documents, and move it to Google Docs.
Bob isn't a staffer you can fire and forget.
He is a senior member of the board, an advocate and fund-raiser, a very familiar face, representing an important constituency of his own among the agency's clients and financial backers,
I did not mean to imply that Bob was a staffer that you could fire and forget. I've been the president of my homeowner's association board -- I know about having unpaid, volunteer members of a group who have skills that the group would really suffer to be without. But are you really prepared to be held hostage by that? How important is the application? If it's not as important as Bob's participation in the group, and you can't see a way to win Bob over to your side, then you don't have a problem. At best you have an irritation that you'll just have to get used to. Or quit.
I'd start with having the board agree to purge all the old docs from the old system. You'll have to do this anyway whether you stay put or move to a different product.
Get agreement and set Bob to work on that. If he doesn't get frustrated and give up, move on to the next step, which is to decide a document hierarchy and have him implement it. If Bob doesn't get sick of that, proceed to the next step, always making the steps reasonable and never losing sight of the ultimate goal -- to have a robust system that people actually want to use.
At some point, one of the following will happen: (a) Bob will quit. While not ideal, this gives you the opportunity to bring someone in to dump the content out of his code, sort it, drop old documents, and move it to Google Docs. (b) Bob will whip his system into shape and make it more useable. This is not a bad solution, as your goal is (or should be) to have a usable system, not specifically to migrate to Google docs. Bob might even surprise you, given the proper motivation. (c) Bob will suggest that we move the content to Google docs to save him work.
Alternately, you could just live with the way things are. But if you're genuine in improving the system, not just cutting Bob out of the deal, you'll have to involve him in the solution. It's not an easy thing to do, but management never is.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have a career maintaining some clunky system I had cobbled together, because (a) it's boring, and (b) it's a lot of work for not much reward. In the past I have jumped at the chance to move on to something that was maintained by someone else so I could build something new.
Years and years ago, I built a content management system from scratch in PHP. The actual content was in text files, (not even HTML) and the code took care of formatting and presentation, on the fly. It included a dynamic gallery that would build an index on the fly from a hierarchy of folders containing images. It was fun to build and worked fairly well. I had four websites using it at one time.
A year or two later, I realized that there were a bunch of free CMS packages out there that looked better than mine and did more things, so rather than compete with that, I audited them, selected the best fit, and converted. I'm proud of my code, but it's not about the code, it's about the content, and it was time to move on to other projects. Hopefully, Bob will see the wisdom in that.
Nod. I understand. I am Libertarian also, and I used to do that. Now I spend my vote where I think it can do the most good, switching between the major parties as necessary to participate in key primaries. But that's a lot more work than just voting for whomever has a capital L after their name.
In most instances, I know the Libertarian candidates personally, and most of them are friends of mine. Additionally, I'd like to see us hit the 5% mark to get major party status.
I was a minor official in my state's Libertarian party, and also know many of the candidates personally. Some have been to my house. There are times when it makes sense to inflate the Libertarian candidate's count. For instance, the 1980 election was already decided for Reagan by the time I got to the polls, so I voted a straight Libertarian ticket. But a close election with a lot at stake is not that time.
Moreover, some of the Libertarian candidates I favor in this state have re-registered Republican to take advantage of the resources of a major party. They still have libertarian values, but now they might even get elected. (And do, sometimes.)
I worked on the Boddie campaign in California in 1994, and Feinstein was elected by a smaller margin than Boddie got. And Feinstein is still in office. I think that was my "what the hell am I doing?" moment.
I think libertarianism works better as a set of philosophies, a moral compass if you will, than it does as a national political party.
Caveat: I'm assuming he likes having his own business and wants to continue, not that he's looking to retire at 19.
Were it me, I'd pursue a business partnership with Facebook and then work like hell to meet their needs. The name you'll make for yourself and your product is better than any advertising.
Acquisition is a way to get paid for your work, but both the money and the fame are paid in a lump sum.
> I'm voting Libertarian, so none of my guys are going to win anyway.
Nod. I understand. I am Libertarian also, and I used to do that. Now I spend my vote where I think it can do the most good, switching between the major parties as necessary to participate in key primaries. But that's a lot more work than just voting for whomever has a capital L after their name.
> Older workers, regardless of the industry, come in (err....well, broadly) two flavors, those that are open to new tech, ideas, whatever, and those that are adamant they stay within their old niche.
If recent slashdot articles are any indication, you can already see some young programmers maneuvering themselves to be the latter. The battle cry to unionize programmers is such a thing -- it says "I expect to be useless in the near future, an obstacle to progress of any kind, and I require collective bargaining to hold onto what I can't by skill and effort alone".
Now mind you, there are oldpharts with skills and the experience to use them effectively. And there are oldpharts who are just waiting to die. I've worked with both kinds. (Well, in the latter case, "worked" is a tad optimistic.) And everything in between. But there's no hard and fast rule that programmers in general become one or the other.
If the mature programmer has spent the last 20 years firmly entrenching himself in the bureaucracy and making an uninspired living providing grudging maintenance on the systems he created in his much more productive youth, then yeah, his status in the company is "obstacle to be overcome".
If the mature programmer has spent the last 20 - 40 years sharpening his skills, trying new things, learning from his mistakes and adding to his experience, then he truly becomes a force to be reckoned with, a mentor sought after by the smarter of the new employees.
Which you become is up to you. The former takes less effort and skill. The latter is more rewarding.
Some baseball bats, ice picks, the occasional incendiary device.
And it will be all for naught, because as soon as you unionize, you will be outsourced. And the people still doing the job who are still in this country will be the ones who have programming, organization, and communication skills not found in offshore development. And don't belong to a union. In the current business environment, unions only work for people who must be on-site, or are adequately politically connected. Or both.
There was an urban legend a long while back that if you got cable television the powers that be (whomever people thought they were) could watch you through the cable. I remember explaining over and over again (thinking "I really need to find a new batch of friends") that this could not happen; that (a) cable TV was one way communication, (b) there existed no mechanism in the gear to capture your voice or image, and (c) even were there, there is no agency so well manned that they could reasonably expect to spy on hundreds of millions of people.
So, now Internet-connected entertainment appliances have given us (a), it appears Microsoft has given us (b), (yay...) and computer facial recognition and the like has given us most of (c).
Parenthetically, I think it ingenious that the industry has maneuvered us into accepting TV-mounted, Internet-connected cameras into our home, and even got us to pay for them. That was an exquisite bit of social engineering.
Anyway, the only thing that we appear to be missing is (d), every household is required by law to have one. It's too bad Orwell didn't live to see the technology he predicted a year before his death.
Slashdot Mirror
The Avengers is a different case. It had a strong director with writing chops who had a good enough reputation to shrug off studio manipulation had that occurred.
Now, let's talk about John Carter.
Disney won't be making new Star Wars films for us, the existing fanbase. They'd be making them for their prime demographic. They'd be crazy not to, after having dropped that much cash for the franchise. So the stories will be sweet and not too scary and have a bunch of kids in the cast and probably have songs. We are not looking at some expanded universe or novels realized on the screen, we're looking at something more in line with The Ewok Adventure. We all need to get used to that, or opening day is going to be a huge disappointment.
will be paid on the installment plan.
I'm having trouble parsing that.
Dude, do you think energy companies would be trying to squeeze gas out of rocks i.e. fracking if oil wasn't running out? Face it, oil has peaked. Since 2000 how have gas prices been? Any wars in oil rich regions? Hmmm, yeah, seems like this oil thing could be on the way out...
You're comparing apples and muffler bolts. The US is sitting on large amounts of oil. For one reason or another (environmental lawsuits, short-sighted politicians, and that it's easier to buy from someone else) we haven't exploited it yet. Natural gas and the whole fracking thing is a different issue. It's not used out of desperation, but because it's relatively easy to do.
> What is the core of the organization value? Maybe fixing an intern application is not worth it over losing one of its prominent members?
That is absolutely true. And given that, the solution is to live with the situation as-is. But if that is truly the situation, why are we trying to solve the guy's problem?
I get this from my wife all the time. (Background: She decided years ago that we keep our finances separate, and I have agreed to that.)
"My car's check engine light is on."
"Autozone will read the code for free."
"I don't have money to fix it."
"It might be simple, like a loose gas cap."
"But it might be expensive."
"True, but you won't know until you have it checked."
"But if it's expensive, I can't afford to fix it right now."
"But at least you'd know what the problem is, and again, it might be something simple."
"Well, I don't have time to go over there."
"It takes less than five minutes to do the check. And you drive right by it on the way to work."
"I don't like talking to them."
Sigh. "OK, enjoy your check engine light. Maybe it'll go off by itself."
> Are you trying to punish Bob or implement new system?
I'm trying to solve the problem. Parenthetically, I don't see "implementing a new system" as the problem. A set of functionality is needed, and the current system does not supply it. That is the real problem. Phrasing "implementing a new system" as the problem is not useful. That is, instead, a possible solution.
It was stipulated that Bob would not support moving to a new system. The current system is inadequate to the point where people refuse to use it. One could decide not do anything about it, but if so, why bring it up in slashdot? For commiseration? Geeks tend not to do that.
So the choices are:
(1) Convince or overrule Bob and move to a new system.
Risk: Bob quits. Before pulling that trigger, research your options.
(2) Convince Bob to fix the current system.
(2a) Bob sees the easiest path as changing his vote to support the move to the new system, problem solved.
(2b) Bob fixes the current system, problem solved.
Risk: Bob quits. See (1)
(3) This is unlikely, but you could get someone skilled in web apps to fix Bob's code for him. This will almost certainly cause Bob to quit, so I didn't originally include it.
Those are your choices. If you want commiseration, talk to Oprah. If those choices don't work, you have in effect decided to live with the problem, and should quit complaining about it.
When tackling a problem, it's important to avoid "painting yourself into a corner syndrome". Stating a problem, and then refusing to consider any solution that has any risk whatsoever, is a good example of that. If you want to stand in a corner surrounded by wet paint, that is your right. But don't tell me your problems if you're going to refuse to consider solutions.
Just as well, because if they ever did get off their planet they would be able to beat us.
(their ships would out maneuver ours , they would have faster reflexes, and we wouldn't have a chance in hand to claw combat
"But they die young, of heart problems"...
Just sayin'...
At some point, one of the following will happen: (a) Bob will quit. While not ideal, this gives you the opportunity to bring someone in to dump the content out of his code, sort it, drop old documents, and move it to Google Docs.
Bob isn't a staffer you can fire and forget.
He is a senior member of the board, an advocate and fund-raiser, a very familiar face, representing an important constituency of his own among the agency's clients and financial backers,
I did not mean to imply that Bob was a staffer that you could fire and forget. I've been the president of my homeowner's association board -- I know about having unpaid, volunteer members of a group who have skills that the group would really suffer to be without. But are you really prepared to be held hostage by that? How important is the application? If it's not as important as Bob's participation in the group, and you can't see a way to win Bob over to your side, then you don't have a problem. At best you have an irritation that you'll just have to get used to. Or quit.
I'd start with having the board agree to purge all the old docs from the old system. You'll have to do this anyway whether you stay put or move to a different product.
Get agreement and set Bob to work on that. If he doesn't get frustrated and give up, move on to the next step, which is to decide a document hierarchy and have him implement it. If Bob doesn't get sick of that, proceed to the next step, always making the steps reasonable and never losing sight of the ultimate goal -- to have a robust system that people actually want to use.
At some point, one of the following will happen: (a) Bob will quit. While not ideal, this gives you the opportunity to bring someone in to dump the content out of his code, sort it, drop old documents, and move it to Google Docs. (b) Bob will whip his system into shape and make it more useable. This is not a bad solution, as your goal is (or should be) to have a usable system, not specifically to migrate to Google docs. Bob might even surprise you, given the proper motivation. (c) Bob will suggest that we move the content to Google docs to save him work.
Alternately, you could just live with the way things are. But if you're genuine in improving the system, not just cutting Bob out of the deal, you'll have to involve him in the solution. It's not an easy thing to do, but management never is.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have a career maintaining some clunky system I had cobbled together, because (a) it's boring, and (b) it's a lot of work for not much reward. In the past I have jumped at the chance to move on to something that was maintained by someone else so I could build something new.
Years and years ago, I built a content management system from scratch in PHP. The actual content was in text files, (not even HTML) and the code took care of formatting and presentation, on the fly. It included a dynamic gallery that would build an index on the fly from a hierarchy of folders containing images. It was fun to build and worked fairly well. I had four websites using it at one time.
A year or two later, I realized that there were a bunch of free CMS packages out there that looked better than mine and did more things, so rather than compete with that, I audited them, selected the best fit, and converted. I'm proud of my code, but it's not about the code, it's about the content, and it was time to move on to other projects. Hopefully, Bob will see the wisdom in that.
Problem is, he's not getting paid.
Nod. I understand. I am Libertarian also, and I used to do that. Now I spend my vote where I think it can do the most good, switching between the major parties as necessary to participate in key primaries. But that's a lot more work than just voting for whomever has a capital L after their name.
In most instances, I know the Libertarian candidates personally, and most of them are friends of mine. Additionally, I'd like to see us hit the 5% mark to get major party status.
I was a minor official in my state's Libertarian party, and also know many of the candidates personally. Some have been to my house. There are times when it makes sense to inflate the Libertarian candidate's count. For instance, the 1980 election was already decided for Reagan by the time I got to the polls, so I voted a straight Libertarian ticket. But a close election with a lot at stake is not that time.
Moreover, some of the Libertarian candidates I favor in this state have re-registered Republican to take advantage of the resources of a major party. They still have libertarian values, but now they might even get elected. (And do, sometimes.)
I worked on the Boddie campaign in California in 1994, and Feinstein was elected by a smaller margin than Boddie got. And Feinstein is still in office. I think that was my "what the hell am I doing?" moment.
I think libertarianism works better as a set of philosophies, a moral compass if you will, than it does as a national political party.
Caveat: I'm assuming he likes having his own business and wants to continue, not that he's looking to retire at 19.
Were it me, I'd pursue a business partnership with Facebook and then work like hell to meet their needs. The name you'll make for yourself and your product is better than any advertising.
Acquisition is a way to get paid for your work, but both the money and the fame are paid in a lump sum.
We need a single card to unify all our discount cards, not our debit cards!!
Why do I find that idea scary?
> I'm voting Libertarian, so none of my guys are going to win anyway.
Nod. I understand. I am Libertarian also, and I used to do that. Now I spend my vote where I think it can do the most good, switching between the major parties as necessary to participate in key primaries. But that's a lot more work than just voting for whomever has a capital L after their name.
My grandfather had to do this, but it was a lot lower tech, and it was for his union, not his employer.
So, how is that working out for you?
> Older workers, regardless of the industry, come in (err....well, broadly) two flavors, those that are open to new tech, ideas, whatever, and those that are adamant they stay within their old niche.
If recent slashdot articles are any indication, you can already see some young programmers maneuvering themselves to be the latter. The battle cry to unionize programmers is such a thing -- it says "I expect to be useless in the near future, an obstacle to progress of any kind, and I require collective bargaining to hold onto what I can't by skill and effort alone".
Now mind you, there are oldpharts with skills and the experience to use them effectively. And there are oldpharts who are just waiting to die. I've worked with both kinds. (Well, in the latter case, "worked" is a tad optimistic.) And everything in between. But there's no hard and fast rule that programmers in general become one or the other.
What must your life be like, having the certain knowledge that it will end at 40.
If the mature programmer has spent the last 20 years firmly entrenching himself in the bureaucracy and making an uninspired living providing grudging maintenance on the systems he created in his much more productive youth, then yeah, his status in the company is "obstacle to be overcome".
If the mature programmer has spent the last 20 - 40 years sharpening his skills, trying new things, learning from his mistakes and adding to his experience, then he truly becomes a force to be reckoned with, a mentor sought after by the smarter of the new employees.
Which you become is up to you. The former takes less effort and skill. The latter is more rewarding.
Some baseball bats, ice picks, the occasional incendiary device.
And it will be all for naught, because as soon as you unionize, you will be outsourced. And the people still doing the job who are still in this country will be the ones who have programming, organization, and communication skills not found in offshore development. And don't belong to a union. In the current business environment, unions only work for people who must be on-site, or are adequately politically connected. Or both.
There was an urban legend a long while back that if you got cable television the powers that be (whomever people thought they were) could watch you through the cable. I remember explaining over and over again (thinking "I really need to find a new batch of friends") that this could not happen; that (a) cable TV was one way communication, (b) there existed no mechanism in the gear to capture your voice or image, and (c) even were there, there is no agency so well manned that they could reasonably expect to spy on hundreds of millions of people.
So, now Internet-connected entertainment appliances have given us (a), it appears Microsoft has given us (b), (yay...) and computer facial recognition and the like has given us most of (c).
Parenthetically, I think it ingenious that the industry has maneuvered us into accepting TV-mounted, Internet-connected cameras into our home, and even got us to pay for them. That was an exquisite bit of social engineering.
Anyway, the only thing that we appear to be missing is (d), every household is required by law to have one. It's too bad Orwell didn't live to see the technology he predicted a year before his death.
This would see the ultimate vision of Walt Disney come true! Every person individually pays each time they view a Disney property.
I'm not completely acquainted with the situation, bu it was my impression that it was Eisner that gave us this business paradigm, not Walt.