In my case, I have two situations to worry about, and neither is under my direct control.
At work, I'm compelled to use (PITY ME) MS Outlook for all my email needs. Anything else is verboten. And, our email system is run by Exchange, totally out of our control in a different part of the building. So, although I'd love to move my filtering upstream, it's not possible. I hear they're trying to implement something, but I have a limited amount of confidence they'll succeed. Sigh... Client-side filtering is about all I can do. But it DOES save me a LOT of time. I get a buttload of spam at work, thanks to a bout with stupidity in which I signed up for some professional journals and the bastards sold my email address almost immediately. I've reduced my time sifting through spam to about a minute here and there, from half an hour at a time. Ain't bad...
At home, I use a cable modem ISP, with pretty fast access. I have no idea what kind of filtering they have upstream, and I have no control over it anyway. All I can do is client-side filtering. Here the problem isn't that bad, because my email address hasn't gotten too far out on the web. And, no Outlook -- OS/X tools only. So it's a more comfy environment...
Interesting idea about running your own mail exchange. You can apply a similar idea there, too, right? I mean, only permit mail from certain domains, etc? Maybe just delete other packets, so the source doesn't even know if your server's up? Or is that unneighborly?;)
Actually there are two kinds of compact fluorescent light bulb; the "daylight" type, which gives off a bright blue light, and the "white" type, which gives off a warm, yellowish glow that looks like a 60W normal bulb. I put the white ones in most places in my apartment, and I put blue ones in my water-heater closet and a storage closet, because they're a bit brighter.
You should go to Home Depot more often. Technology changes with time, you know?
It's old fashioned, and some of you will probably make fun of me for using it, but hey, I'm old school. FYI, here's my method:
1. Create manual spam filters (NOT beyesian filters) in your inbox called "Friends and Family", "Work", "Services", "logfiles", and any others you find you need. Each category applies to a broad type of email address you'll receive email from. Then create a subdirectory in your inbox for each of these filters (named the same way, naturally).
2. For each filter, build a list of people who are allowed to email you. For example, your ISP, your bank, and your phone company would probably be added to services. Just add the email address they send their messages from to the list.
3. For each filter, have the filter move messages matching the filter (From equals ) to the correct subdirectory for the filter. Then stop processing for that message, so it doesn't get interpereted by other filters. Think of this as an analogy for ipfilter or ipfw in your firewall setup -- only you're filtering emails instead of packets.
4. Finally, DELETE EVERYTHING ELSE in the very last filter.
You USE this approach by doing a quick scan of the deleted items folder to see if anything is interesting. If not, just clean out those deleted items. It's a one step operation, much easier than selectively deleting a hundred emails one at a time.
Then, you scan each of the folders you set up, IF the folder has picked up an email, focusing only on your REAL email.
This approach has saved me a HUGE amount of work lately. My life is a whole lot easier, and it's way easier than trying to train a Beyesian filter. If I don't know you, you can't get too much of my attention.
It's all about being on the list, sort of like getting into a nightclub...;)
I recently got a full complement of fluroescent bulbs for my apartment; they replaced all of my regular light bulbs with dramatic energy savings: for example, I replaced my 60-Watt bulbs with equivalent fluroescent bulbs that provide just as much light but only use 14 watts each. My only remaining "normal" light bulbs are in the bathroom, where I have some of those fancy globe-type lights over the sink.
My electric bill dropped under 30 bucks as a result. Not bad, eh? And, that's keeping a couple of lights on at all times.
If I had a nickel for every time some silly elitist fool who took a "software engineering" course in his junior and senior years and thus considers himself an "engineer" waved his degree around and looked down his nose at all the poor, unwashed coders around him, I'd be richer than Gates. Christ, man, get over yourself. You're not an engineer. Case in point: if you tried calling yourself an engineer in Canada or the UK, you'd be FINED and hollered at by a judge and a professional board.
Feh. What twaddle.
BY THE WAY: You "software engineers" are big fans of BUFD (Big Up Front Design). You LOVE the waterfall model of project management. You're clinging to ancient, not-so-hot methodologies, like the mainframe dinosaurs who think object oriented programming is a communist plot and that Fortran 77 was how God meant man to program (ha ha ha!). I'll take agile processes over your waterfall any day. And, I'll be a hell of a lot more productive than you.
No two programs are the same, this is true, but once a program is finished it can be copied infinitely at zero cost. A craftsman's output, on the other hand, has to be replicated individually, and thus, no two pieces are ever exactly the same. That's what I was trying to say.
Ah, I see. And, a degreed professional who studied computer science is what, exactly? A woodcarver? No, I'm sorry, I think you're totally wrong.
I think perhaps the software you've been writing has been relatively simple; web development, maybe, or VBA apps. I dont' say this to insult you; I don't bear you any ill will. But I also don't think you've worked on anything complex enough to understand what I was describing -- you have no frame of reference.
Perhaps if you could work on a really large project or two, something totally new that in fact hasn't existed before, you'd totally get what I'm saying and stop trying to compare apples and oranges (or programming and woodcarving).
I have seen what you're describing, usually as an implementation of a turnkey system of some sort, perhaps an accounting system. The system to produce some effect is already designed, and all that is required is to configure it and script it to perform a customized effect for a given client. This sort of work CAN be estimated very effectively, because it is generally the same and so you just average how long it's taken in the past and you have a fair estimate on how long it'll take in the future.
But when you're developing a new system of any complexity, say for example a complicated workflow system with version control of documents and tracking features (I'm doing one of these right now and believe me, it's no picnic) you're essentially building something brand new. You have to develop a data model, figure out how you want to interact with it, model the actual process by which people are going to interact with the system by analyzing how the work is currently being done (in my case, by documents emailed back and forth and stored hierarchially)... What you've got is a huge, complex modelling process. And, you're guaranteed to run into all sorts of nasty surprises like changing business rules, database problems, etc, which are guaranteed to incinerate any estimate you might have made. The larger and more complex the system gets, the harder it gets to treat it as an engineering process. You end up using a more iterative approach, something like XP or scrum, just because you have to have a way to handle all the crazy changes you end up having to make.
I'm not saying that you can't develop boilerplate; but the first time you work on the problem, it isn't going to be boilerplate. It's going to be new development. Even if you can reuse small chunks of code, you'll still have to do a whole lot of creative work. You might get more efficient over time (Lord knows I have a toolbox of my own, and I use it very frequently) but you still end up doing a lot of modelling and intellectual work.
I don't think engineering is the right paradigm to use; I like the mathematics analogy a lot better. It feels a lot closer to what I do, you know?
I think the biggest problem is something mentioned by another poster in this thread: during the dot-com boom, zillions of carpetbaggers took six week to six month courses in "computers" and declared themselves programmers. Then they flooded the market with mediocrity, destroying the reputation of programming as a discipline and confusing already-none-too-bright managers into thinking programming wasn't a profession. It's really ruined things.
Remember the old days, when a programmer would move up through the ranks to programmer/analyst, and finally systems/analyst, running a larger and larger team as his skills grew? You'd have the brightest programmers designing the projects, breaking them down into their component parts, assigning the work... If you had a problem with some aspect of the implementation, you could discuss it with your superiors and they would actually *understand* you and work on it with you. I yearn for those days, believe me.
That's a great post. I know exactly what you mean. I graduated with a bachelor's degree in computer science and ended up working next to people who'd taken a six month course. It was really weird.
You know what I miss? When a programmer would start as a programmer, then become a programmer/analyst after a couple of years, then end up a systems analyst after four to six years. A systems analyst controlling the design, programmer/analysts working on parts of the project, and the simpler work being handed to the relatively newer programmers... It was such a nicer system than what evolved over the dot-bomb years. It was almost like a mentoring/apprenticeship approach, the way senior scientists mentor younger ones in other fields.
See, THAT's what I miss. You don't get that anymore.
That's a tough one. Although you're doing a lot of programming, it's part of a physical system, a component of a larger engineering project; so I'd say you're probably acting more as an engineer than a programmer, even though you're doing programming, and your design process is an engineering process because of the risks involved and the care you have to take.
I'd say this would be engineering. Besides, you're an engineer by training, aren't you? So by definition you're an engineer, and you probably have some sort of professional license by now, right? Otherwise you'd be supervised by a PE -- or am I wrong?
An engineer who does programming is still an engineer, isn't he? But a programmer isn't an engineer just because he uses engineering-like design practices...
Anyway, all this is just my opinion. This IS slashdot, after all...:)
I respect your intent, but I don't think it'll work. Here's why:
1. Companies don't care about code quality, or they would never have outsourced in the first place. Companies want to lower their bottom line by hiring the absolute cheapest "talent" they can find. So unless your hypothetical consulting company can compete on a price level with an Indian company whose cost of living is a tiny fraction of yours (and still be able to generate a profit) your company will fail in short order whether it's run by programmers or not.
2. Unions are an absolutely great idea! All my friends are in unions, and so am I. In government service, where the management can't just pick up and move the whole department to another country, a union is completely effective. But in private industry, a union won't work; the minute you try to strike the whole department will be relocated to Bangalore. Unions won't be able to affect private industry unless a sufficient backlash occurs, and companies decide they have to reopen here for political or PR reasons. Then and only then will you be able to get any leverage.
3. Government certification won't work because companies will just use it to justify increased outsourcing. "Look" they'll say, "we can't find anyone with a high enough certification!" It sounds good on paper, but it's too easy to subvert.
Stick to civil service, trust me. You'll be much happier.
First, I am not unhirable. I work for a government agency, so I don't have a noncompete, IP agreement, or nondisclosure agreement to worry about. I could leave any time I wanted -- but why would I? I'm already in paradise.
Second, if you read the trade rags and pay attention to the industry, you'll realize that it is the generalists who are being outsourced to other countries because they're basically plug-and-play. So, go ahead and be an "adaptable specialist" if you think that'll work out for you. But don't cry to me when A) you get outsourced, and B) you can't find a job because you haven't got enough specialized domain knowledge.
Third, any programmer who's any good at all finds himself specializing within a few years in some particular area of study. If you think this isn't true, you've been working in entry-level jobs too long. Good luck with that.
I didn't study "programming" in school, I studied "computer science". And, I design and develop systems for manipulating information (large quantities of information), I don't just code up some tiny little piece of twaddle.
You're confusing programmers and "wannabes who read a SAMS book and think they're web developers". Go back to your management seminar.
First: forget about software being an "engineering" discipline. It is not. Engineering deals with building physical things, to deal with physical problems. Their design process is entirely different from ours. They spend a huge amount of time perfecting a design up-front, testing it in computer simulations to make sure it won't fall apart under load, building a prototype and destructively testing it, etc. Then they spend another significant amount of time figuring out exactly how best to build the product efficiently. THEN AND ONLY THEN do they actually start building the product.
Contrast this with computer science.While the software development process is LIKE engineering in that there is a design and prototyping period which is difficult and requires a high degree of skill, it is also UNLIKE engineering because in computer science, once you've got a prototype you're ready to test and you can distribute it as-is for nearly zero cost.
Programming is also unlike crafts. In fact, I think considering programmers craftsmen is unfair. A craftsman is an artisan, like a painter or a woodcarver. No two items he creates are the same. He doesn't go through a lengthy design period; he merely creates whatever thing of beauty he is working on. Further, a single item he creates is expensive, because each item is unique and represents a huge investment in time. So I don't think this comparison holds up either.
If you want an accurate model for computer programming, the closest model is that of the mathematician, because really, computer science is a branch of mathematics. It is the branch that deals with implementation and design of algorithms. In a sense, programmers model thought processes; things humans would have to do manually if the computer didn't exist.
When you look at it this way, you're much closer to modelling what's actually going on when a programmer grabs his keyboard. We consider the process an individual human would take to achieve some result; then we codify the process as a set of rules that can be automated and vastly accelerated; then we empower a computer, a lifeless, inanimate object, to perform those rules for us.
We're mathematicians modelling thought for the benefit of our society, creating machines which can enhance the power of our minds. WE are the accelerant speeding the growth of our culture, because WE are the steroid that is causing our intellectual capacity to grow faster than it could ever evolve on its own. Just look at the internet itself: it is so much more vast, and has so much more potential than the library at Alexandria. WE created that. WE made this happen.
And, now, we are considered a burden that must be outsourced. It's ironic, isn't it? Corporations who owe us their very ability to do business worldwide have no gratitude or loyalty for us, and are brushing us aside as though we don't exist. We're just line items to them.
But I'm rambling. Your conceptual approach is that of the mathematician. A design process which mixes equal amounts of knowledge, skill, and inspiration. None of which can be planned like an assembly line.
First of all, private industry was never a particularly good place to work. Add up the noncompetes, the nondisclosures, and the IP agreements, and you have a pretty fair approximation of slavery. Think I'm wrong? If you're fired or laid off, you've basically been discarded without the ability to move to a new company thanks to the noncompete. If you try to flee the plantation and start your own company, you'll get hit with the nondisclosures and IP agreements. Even if your product isn't directly related to your old company's, they'll figure out SOME way of making it look related. They might just try and claim that you've built your new company based on things you were working on at theirs -- even if they don't have a leg to stand on, they can afford to throw legal talent at you and they'll crush you in the courts (remember, they have lawyers on staff). Ever try to hire a lawyer while unemployed?
Then, there are the project managers. I'll admit, there are occasionally good ones. But, all too often, you end up with a PHB: Always leaning on you, looking over your shoulder, trying to force technical decisions on you despite the fact they don't know what they're talking about, trying to set insane schedules and unreasonable deadlines. Because a programmer is generally on salary, PHB's try to force him to work unpaid overtime, often sixty-plus hours a week, because that makes the budget stretch. Or SEEM to stretch, but with suits, that's good enough.
Finally, there's the clear difference in status between management and staff. Programmers are treated like peons in private industry, make no mistake. We're serfs, no more and no less. I used to work in a place where programmers were hired in a wobbly-chair, lamp-in-the-face process. Salesmen would get a fraternity style "rush" complete with sushi and beer. If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.
Add it all up. Private industry = dilbert-inspired hell.
This whole outsourcing thing is just the final icing on the cake. It proves once and for all what management thinks of us: that we're replaceable, nearly-worthless, recipe followers. Fine, I say. Fine with me. I'm GLAD to have their feelings clearly delineated for me. It spares me from having to even briefly consider working with or for them, and it prevents me from ever thinking about building any sort of third-party tool that they might find useful.
I'll stick to other sectors of the economy where my contribution is appreciated, like the public sector or maybe the non-profit sector. And, I'll push my state representiatives to require citizenship for all public-sector programming, including that which is produced by third parties. After all, there IS a security issue here: public sector, government work should NOT be done outside of this country. Public-sector programmers should be bonded, insured, and thoroughly checked out. It might be a good idea to set up regs for banks to do the same -- and any other entity that has to handle private data.
This isn't "protectionism". It's simple common sense.
"Then how do you plan to get your face into a skin for a console shooter?"
Ans: I don't. Why would I? If I'm in FPS mode, I can't SEE my face, so what's the difference anyway? I think you're reaching here, using an extreme thing most people don't do as a justification for using GIMP on a console.
note about college kids and TV's acknowledged... BUT, you can get TVs a lot more cheaply than you can get PCs. And, the smart money in college gets a cheapo laptop, not a desktop PC -- BECAUSE, you can lock your laptop in your footlocker. You can't stop your roommate from (mis)using your PC, potentially getting you in trouble.
As far as making a game that'll run on multiple video cards, let me offer you some advice: acquire an engine, don't write your own. Very few people write their own engines these days. Companies like ID and Valve can afford to roll their own; they have R+D departments and cash to burn. Why waste all your effort trying to compete against colossus players like ID? Acquire a good engine and write to its API. You can download the Quake II engine for free and mod it to your heart's content, with no royalties due as long as you share your source (it's GPL'ed). OR, you can go to www.garagegames.com and buy their Torque engine for 100.00, with no further royalties required. Torque ROCKS. It's what I'm using. It offers some really gorgeous effects, too, although the water effects look nicer on the PC than they do on my iBook. Also, Torque compiles exactly the same on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS/X. Best of all, GarageGames will sell your game for you if it's any good, and hand you a 65% royalty.
You can't beat that with a stick. Of course, I don't think Torque can be compiled for a console, but so what? You can still sell your game's concept and story to a console gaming company. Let them use THEIR R+D to port to the console.
Basically, don't sweat things that other companies have already solved for you.;)
1. The N64 sucked. I have one, and the controller is horrendous. Don't get me wrong, Rebel Squadron isn't bad for its era, and I do enjoy playing N64 games, but the controller is just nasty. Don't judge controllers by that antique. It's like judging car ergonomics by riding around the back woods in a Model T Ford with bad shocks.
2. As far as using the Gimp on a console, that's fucking stupid. I'm not trying to flame you here, but PLEASE be serious. I do my image editing on my laptop: a maxed out iBook running OS/X. I also do sound editing on it, art on it, and programming as well (C++). I think the issue here is that you should use a tool for tasks it is suited for. You don't use a dremel moto-tool to hammer nails, and you shouldn't use a console for image editing.
3. RTS games work just fine on a console, with the controller. I had a wonderful time playing Alien Vs. Predator Extinction on my XBox, and I didn't feel the controller impeded me in any way. In fact, it was a hell of a lot more comfortable than a mouse and keyboard.
4. FINALLY, my console + TV setup cost me two hundred for the console (they're even cheaper now) and maybe another couple of hundred for my 27" TV (I got it a long time ago, I think it was maybe three hundred, tops). So we're talking about maybe five hundred, except the television is something most PC users have also. So you can really only consider the console. In other words, I paid 200 bucks for the ability to play games on my TV; you paid a hell of a lot more than I did, guaranteed (that TV-ready video card, for example, and having to max out and keep upgrading your PC, and so on).
4. As far as writing games go, so what? If you want to develop a game, write for the PC. If your game is any good, maybe someone will pick it up. If it catches any buzz, a large company might want to license it from you, and port it to whatever console they have a license for. IF you use DirectX 9, porting your game to the Xbox will be easy enough that you'll be able to shop your game demo on a laptop to companies that might want to develop it. Then THEY develop it, using THEIR license, and YOU get a big fat royalty. Or didn't you think of that?
It's NOT "all good". It's wrong to shop jobs overseas, because you're selling out your own people to help your bottom line. It's a basic issue of right and wrong. American companies want to SELL us their overpriced, shoddily made crap, don't they? But they don't want to pay us a living wage, or let us keep our jobs and dignity, or even treat us with respect, because someone, somewhere can be had for less money.
I say, "FINE." Let them stab their own people in the back. Let them demonstrate their low character, their complete lack of honor, their craven greed and their shallow, evil natures. It's fine with me! I'll adapt, as will most of my fellow Americans. Here's what we'll do:
1. Refuse to work for corporations, period. There are many other ways to work for a living. Every town in the country has numerous small businesses which need staff. Start a business yourself. Open a coffee shop, a bookstore, or maybe a bar. Use a small business loan if you don't have cash on hand. If you're a programmer, build something interesting and sell it. Or join civil service, be a cop, or a sysadmin in your town hall. Do ANYTHING except work for a corporation. And make that your policy.
2. Refuse to show corporations any loyalty whatsoever. Every time some big-time outsourcer like GMC tries to wrap itself in the flag and sell you a truck, buy a Toyota instead. At least the Japanese are hiring Americans to work in their plants.
3. Refuse to give corporate America any breaks at all. Don't invest in their stocks, don't accept their credit cards (except, naturally, for that one emergency card we all have), and don't sign on for their services. Take the attitude, as I do, that corporate America is dead to you.
4. If you have any money, put it in the Swiss bank. At least then, no American corporations are benefiting from its use.
And, finally,
lobby your representiatives so that no government contracts or jobs can be farmed out overseas -- keep at least ONE sector of employment in this country for the taxpayers, for cryin' out loud...
The joypad joysticks are pressure sensitive. Apply a small amount of force, and you get fine aiming and fine control. Apply a lot of force and you get proportionally more movement. You get used to it very quickly, and you get to the point where it's very, very easy to handle a sniper rifle. Case in point: Medal of Honor: Frontline. I've been sniping nazis for a while now; it's a breeze. I usually get a head shot, even from a long distance. The trick is to get a nice joypad. I have a StormChaser, which is big and roomy, and very comfortable with rubberized grips. The stock Playstation joypads are tiny, for tiny, graceful little japanese hands. I'm a New Yorker; my hands are the size of frying pans. 'Course, my XBox has a big, comfy controller so the stock one was just fine...
About the thumb issue:
You DO have fingers in addition to your thumbs, right? And, we're not talking about changing weapons, because that is usually handled by one of the buttons on the right side of the controller. We're talking about inventory items and special keys, which you would be using if you weren't stuck on relatively uncomplicated deathmatch games (which have very few controls that matter). Also please realize that each joystick can also be pushed AS A BUTTON, i.e. you push down on them and you feel a little click. It's a nice feature. Usually something important is mapped to this.
Just to show you how silly your idea that console controllers aren't versatile is, I'll point out that most modern controllers have two to four triggers under your index fingers; four directional buttons near your left hand; four directional buttons near your right hand; one joystick under each thumb with an additional function when they're pressed directly; and two buttons in the center (which are usually the pause game and options controls).
With that many buttons literally right under your fingers, I'd say that joypads are actually far more ergonomic than your keyboard and mouse. I've been playing with them for a long time, and have yet to cramp up after a several-hour gaming marathon.
Of course, we haven't brought up the REAL advantage game consoles have over computers: they don't damage your eyesight. Usually, your large-screen television is more than six feet away, which lets you focus for distance, which relaxes your eye muscles. A computer screen is rarely more than two feet away, which leads to nearsightedness and thick glasses (believe me, being nearsighted, I know).
Going slowly blind, developing tennis elbow from mousing, and getting severe carpal tunnel syndrome might be a high price to pay for an illusory improvement in reaction time, I think. Besides, all your friends see you going blind and getting tennis elbow and end up wondering how big your porn collection is. Too embarassing!
Well, that's a little silly. I don't think it's a bandwidth problem, I think it amounts to which style of controller an individual prefers. Frankly, I like the joypads better than the mouse/keyboard combo nowadays. They're so much easier in some ways -- for example, you can usually access inventory items and special functions without taking your thumb off the left joystick. On a keyboard, you have to move your hand usually, which leaves you temporarily vulnerable.
1. We don't get laid nearly enough. For some reason, chicks don't seem to dig us (or at least, me).
2. We don't get paid nearly enough. IT is in a shambles, and will be for a while yet. Sigh...
3. People look down on us because instead of watching senseless, pointless games like football, we play senseless, pointless games like Doom -- the thing that would improve MY life 100% would be for the bar-going, sports-snarfing public to suddenly realize, "Hey! Watching 22 grown men bump into one another ISN'T more mature than playing video games!"
4. People just don't seem to get the fact that programming is an art. They still treat us like a bunch of low-skill manual laborers.
Hey, things change all the time. I've got a Playstation and an XBox, and I love both of them. I'm having an absolutely kick-ass time playing FPS games on both consoles, and I finished Aliens Vs. Predator Extinction on the XBox a while ago. More FPS and RTS games are coming out all the time.
Another issue: buy a console and you don't have to upgrade for years. Possibly a lot of years. Offloading the most strenuous software you'll ever use from your PC to a console means your PC might NEVER need to be upgraded. It saves money over time, more than you might think.
Here's one for the Linux crowd: buy a console and it won't matter that you can't find many games for Linux. You'll be free to choose the O/S of your choice for your PC, freeing you to really leverage the machine's power, because you'll still be able to game to your heart's content. No dual-booting necessary.
Anyway, you see where I'm coming from. I love PC games, don't get me wrong, but I think consoles are winning because they're more convenient, cheaper long-term, and of high enough quality that the switch is painless.
I keep hearing people say they think outsourcing to India (et al) is "sensible", conservative, etc. It may appear to be from the management perspective, but it really isn't. There's a huge cost, especially when you're dealing with IT, and the business community hasn't really caught on yet. Consider:
1. Work that is outsourced may be unmaintainable. The outsourcing company may go out of business, they may end their relationship with you, they may make unreasonable demands forcing you to try to find a new vendor... And, when you try to get a technology transfer (i.e. the source code to all that stuff they coded) they might just tell you "no way". You'll have no recourse whatsoever. Remember, US laws only extend to the border.
2. When you transfer all that control to an external source (control of your IT, your data, and your clerical functions is control of your company, make no mistake), you LOSE that control yourself. Do you really trust a bunch of complete strangers to not be tempted by this "opportunity"? There have already been cases of extortion and blackmail. The incidence of this is going to go up, not down. Not to mention that #1 applies here, too; if a company goes under, who's controlling your company NOW? It could be Goodnight, Irene. Would YOU like to be the one to explain this to your stockholders?
3. Outsourced code isn't necessarily going to follow any specific standard, or even the specs you send over. Because, after all, what are you going to do about it if you don't like it? Nothing, that's what; you're ten thousand miles away, you don't have any programmers left on staff to check their work, and anyway, their laws are different from ours and you're not going to get anywhere even if you DO pursue it. You have to accept whatever they decide to give you. And they know it.
4. Three words that should make you drop a load in your pants: "third party tools". You don't know what your outsourcing friends are putting in your code; you don't know if they own licences to it; you don't know if it works or if it'll continue to work past its next revision, and you don't know if you'll be able to maintain it. Tool companies go out of business, too, their assets get bought by companies (like, say, your competitors). This can be really dangerous, especially with all the piracy going on overseas. Do you want to be the guy who has to explain the IP lawsuit to your stockholders?
I could go on but you get the idea. Even using H1-Bs here in this country isn't entirely safe. When an H1-B or an L-1 goes back home, he effectively drops off the face of the earth. Do you think he's going to fly over at the drop of a hat to maintain your code when it breaks? Do you even have him in your rolodex? Probably not. Basically, if it breaks, you're rewriting it with the next crop of consultants, and so on, forever. If this sounds stable or safe to you, more power to you, but it makes my head ache.
It's not as "sensible" or "conservative" as it looks. Companies are cutting their own throats for a short term bump in stock prices.
I think this is standard think-tank talk. If they don't add in some completely goofy estimate about how rich all people will suddenly become, they won't be taken seriously by the other goofy futurists. I mean, it'd be like they *weren't even trying*!
Actually, I think a much more reasonable prediction is this:
They build this super solar-based power generation system, which would let them switch over to a hydrogen economy, etc and so forth. So, they come up with hydrogen powered everything that they then sell to private citizens, who end up deep in debt buying all the new stuff they'll need now that petrofuels are no longer available. New cars, new lawn mowers, new electric scooters, you get the idea. Everything is automated and robotic, so they don't have to hire anyone to man all of their new power generation plants, except for maybe a mechanical engineer here and there to throw switches and watch gauges, and offer his head on a platter when things go wrong (gotta blame SOMEONE). And, things stay pretty much the way they are now, except no gasoline hikes and no smog.
No one gets rich, although the rich get richer.
Everyone who used to work in a power plant or a gas station is now unemployed.
And, no one's life is particularly changed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. Well, you've got me there.
;)
In my case, I have two situations to worry about, and neither is under my direct control.
At work, I'm compelled to use (PITY ME) MS Outlook for all my email needs. Anything else is verboten. And, our email system is run by Exchange, totally out of our control in a different part of the building. So, although I'd love to move my filtering upstream, it's not possible. I hear they're trying to implement something, but I have a limited amount of confidence they'll succeed. Sigh... Client-side filtering is about all I can do. But it DOES save me a LOT of time. I get a buttload of spam at work, thanks to a bout with stupidity in which I signed up for some professional journals and the bastards sold my email address almost immediately. I've reduced my time sifting through spam to about a minute here and there, from half an hour at a time. Ain't bad...
At home, I use a cable modem ISP, with pretty fast access. I have no idea what kind of filtering they have upstream, and I have no control over it anyway. All I can do is client-side filtering. Here the problem isn't that bad, because my email address hasn't gotten too far out on the web. And, no Outlook -- OS/X tools only. So it's a more comfy environment...
Interesting idea about running your own mail exchange. You can apply a similar idea there, too, right? I mean, only permit mail from certain domains, etc? Maybe just delete other packets, so the source doesn't even know if your server's up? Or is that unneighborly?
Actually there are two kinds of compact fluorescent light bulb; the "daylight" type, which gives off a bright blue light, and the "white" type, which gives off a warm, yellowish glow that looks like a 60W normal bulb. I put the white ones in most places in my apartment, and I put blue ones in my water-heater closet and a storage closet, because they're a bit brighter.
You should go to Home Depot more often. Technology changes with time, you know?
(Green? Do they even SELL those anymore???)
It's old fashioned, and some of you will probably make fun of me for using it, but hey, I'm old school. FYI, here's my method:
;)
1. Create manual spam filters (NOT beyesian filters) in your inbox called "Friends and Family", "Work", "Services", "logfiles", and any others you find you need. Each category applies to a broad type of email address you'll receive email from. Then create a subdirectory in your inbox for each of these filters (named the same way, naturally).
2. For each filter, build a list of people who are allowed to email you. For example, your ISP, your bank, and your phone company would probably be added to services. Just add the email address they send their messages from to the list.
3. For each filter, have the filter move messages matching the filter (From equals ) to the correct subdirectory for the filter. Then stop processing for that message, so it doesn't get interpereted by other filters. Think of this as an analogy for ipfilter or ipfw in your firewall setup -- only you're filtering emails instead of packets.
4. Finally, DELETE EVERYTHING ELSE in the very last filter.
You USE this approach by doing a quick scan of the deleted items folder to see if anything is interesting. If not, just clean out those deleted items. It's a one step operation, much easier than selectively deleting a hundred emails one at a time.
Then, you scan each of the folders you set up, IF the folder has picked up an email, focusing only on your REAL email.
This approach has saved me a HUGE amount of work lately. My life is a whole lot easier, and it's way easier than trying to train a Beyesian filter. If I don't know you, you can't get too much of my attention.
It's all about being on the list, sort of like getting into a nightclub...
I recently got a full complement of fluroescent bulbs for my apartment; they replaced all of my regular light bulbs with dramatic energy savings: for example, I replaced my 60-Watt bulbs with equivalent fluroescent bulbs that provide just as much light but only use 14 watts each. My only remaining "normal" light bulbs are in the bathroom, where I have some of those fancy globe-type lights over the sink.
My electric bill dropped under 30 bucks as a result. Not bad, eh? And, that's keeping a couple of lights on at all times.
If I had a nickel for every time some silly elitist fool who took a "software engineering" course in his junior and senior years and thus considers himself an "engineer" waved his degree around and looked down his nose at all the poor, unwashed coders around him, I'd be richer than Gates. Christ, man, get over yourself. You're not an engineer. Case in point: if you tried calling yourself an engineer in Canada or the UK, you'd be FINED and hollered at by a judge and a professional board.
Feh. What twaddle.
BY THE WAY: You "software engineers" are big fans of BUFD (Big Up Front Design). You LOVE the waterfall model of project management. You're clinging to ancient, not-so-hot methodologies, like the mainframe dinosaurs who think object oriented programming is a communist plot and that Fortran 77 was how God meant man to program (ha ha ha!). I'll take agile processes over your waterfall any day. And, I'll be a hell of a lot more productive than you.
No two programs are the same, this is true, but once a program is finished it can be copied infinitely at zero cost. A craftsman's output, on the other hand, has to be replicated individually, and thus, no two pieces are ever exactly the same. That's what I was trying to say.
;)
Funny, though.
Ah, I see. And, a degreed professional who studied computer science is what, exactly? A woodcarver? No, I'm sorry, I think you're totally wrong.
I think perhaps the software you've been writing has been relatively simple; web development, maybe, or VBA apps. I dont' say this to insult you; I don't bear you any ill will. But I also don't think you've worked on anything complex enough to understand what I was describing -- you have no frame of reference.
Perhaps if you could work on a really large project or two, something totally new that in fact hasn't existed before, you'd totally get what I'm saying and stop trying to compare apples and oranges (or programming and woodcarving).
I have seen what you're describing, usually as an implementation of a turnkey system of some sort, perhaps an accounting system. The system to produce some effect is already designed, and all that is required is to configure it and script it to perform a customized effect for a given client. This sort of work CAN be estimated very effectively, because it is generally the same and so you just average how long it's taken in the past and you have a fair estimate on how long it'll take in the future.
But when you're developing a new system of any complexity, say for example a complicated workflow system with version control of documents and tracking features (I'm doing one of these right now and believe me, it's no picnic) you're essentially building something brand new. You have to develop a data model, figure out how you want to interact with it, model the actual process by which people are going to interact with the system by analyzing how the work is currently being done (in my case, by documents emailed back and forth and stored hierarchially)... What you've got is a huge, complex modelling process. And, you're guaranteed to run into all sorts of nasty surprises like changing business rules, database problems, etc, which are guaranteed to incinerate any estimate you might have made. The larger and more complex the system gets, the harder it gets to treat it as an engineering process. You end up using a more iterative approach, something like XP or scrum, just because you have to have a way to handle all the crazy changes you end up having to make.
I'm not saying that you can't develop boilerplate; but the first time you work on the problem, it isn't going to be boilerplate. It's going to be new development. Even if you can reuse small chunks of code, you'll still have to do a whole lot of creative work. You might get more efficient over time (Lord knows I have a toolbox of my own, and I use it very frequently) but you still end up doing a lot of modelling and intellectual work.
I don't think engineering is the right paradigm to use; I like the mathematics analogy a lot better. It feels a lot closer to what I do, you know?
I think the biggest problem is something mentioned by another poster in this thread: during the dot-com boom, zillions of carpetbaggers took six week to six month courses in "computers" and declared themselves programmers. Then they flooded the market with mediocrity, destroying the reputation of programming as a discipline and confusing already-none-too-bright managers into thinking programming wasn't a profession. It's really ruined things.
Remember the old days, when a programmer would move up through the ranks to programmer/analyst, and finally systems/analyst, running a larger and larger team as his skills grew? You'd have the brightest programmers designing the projects, breaking them down into their component parts, assigning the work... If you had a problem with some aspect of the implementation, you could discuss it with your superiors and they would actually *understand* you and work on it with you. I yearn for those days, believe me.
That's a great post. I know exactly what you mean. I graduated with a bachelor's degree in computer science and ended up working next to people who'd taken a six month course. It was really weird.
You know what I miss? When a programmer would start as a programmer, then become a programmer/analyst after a couple of years, then end up a systems analyst after four to six years. A systems analyst controlling the design, programmer/analysts working on parts of the project, and the simpler work being handed to the relatively newer programmers... It was such a nicer system than what evolved over the dot-bomb years. It was almost like a mentoring/apprenticeship approach, the way senior scientists mentor younger ones in other fields.
See, THAT's what I miss. You don't get that anymore.
That's a tough one. Although you're doing a lot of programming, it's part of a physical system, a component of a larger engineering project; so I'd say you're probably acting more as an engineer than a programmer, even though you're doing programming, and your design process is an engineering process because of the risks involved and the care you have to take.
:)
I'd say this would be engineering. Besides, you're an engineer by training, aren't you? So by definition you're an engineer, and you probably have some sort of professional license by now, right? Otherwise you'd be supervised by a PE -- or am I wrong?
An engineer who does programming is still an engineer, isn't he? But a programmer isn't an engineer just because he uses engineering-like design practices...
Anyway, all this is just my opinion. This IS slashdot, after all...
I respect your intent, but I don't think it'll work. Here's why:
1. Companies don't care about code quality, or they would never have outsourced in the first place. Companies want to lower their bottom line by hiring the absolute cheapest "talent" they can find. So unless your hypothetical consulting company can compete on a price level with an Indian company whose cost of living is a tiny fraction of yours (and still be able to generate a profit) your company will fail in short order whether it's run by programmers or not.
2. Unions are an absolutely great idea! All my friends are in unions, and so am I. In government service, where the management can't just pick up and move the whole department to another country, a union is completely effective. But in private industry, a union won't work; the minute you try to strike the whole department will be relocated to Bangalore. Unions won't be able to affect private industry unless a sufficient backlash occurs, and companies decide they have to reopen here for political or PR reasons. Then and only then will you be able to get any leverage.
3. Government certification won't work because companies will just use it to justify increased outsourcing. "Look" they'll say, "we can't find anyone with a high enough certification!" It sounds good on paper, but it's too easy to subvert.
Stick to civil service, trust me. You'll be much happier.
You've made several mistakes.
First, I am not unhirable. I work for a government agency, so I don't have a noncompete, IP agreement, or nondisclosure agreement to worry about. I could leave any time I wanted -- but why would I? I'm already in paradise.
Second, if you read the trade rags and pay attention to the industry, you'll realize that it is the generalists who are being outsourced to other countries because they're basically plug-and-play. So, go ahead and be an "adaptable specialist" if you think that'll work out for you. But don't cry to me when A) you get outsourced, and B) you can't find a job because you haven't got enough specialized domain knowledge.
Third, any programmer who's any good at all finds himself specializing within a few years in some particular area of study. If you think this isn't true, you've been working in entry-level jobs too long. Good luck with that.
Typical PHB-thinking.
I didn't study "programming" in school, I studied "computer science". And, I design and develop systems for manipulating information (large quantities of information), I don't just code up some tiny little piece of twaddle.
You're confusing programmers and "wannabes who read a SAMS book and think they're web developers". Go back to your management seminar.
I think I might have one for your perusal:
First: forget about software being an "engineering" discipline. It is not. Engineering deals with building physical things, to deal with physical problems. Their design process is entirely different from ours. They spend a huge amount of time perfecting a design up-front, testing it in computer simulations to make sure it won't fall apart under load, building a prototype and destructively testing it, etc. Then they spend another significant amount of time figuring out exactly how best to build the product efficiently. THEN AND ONLY THEN do they actually start building the product.
Contrast this with computer science.While the software development process is LIKE engineering in that there is a design and prototyping period which is difficult and requires a high degree of skill, it is also UNLIKE engineering because in computer science, once you've got a prototype you're ready to test and you can distribute it as-is for nearly zero cost.
Programming is also unlike crafts. In fact, I think considering programmers craftsmen is unfair. A craftsman is an artisan, like a painter or a woodcarver. No two items he creates are the same. He doesn't go through a lengthy design period; he merely creates whatever thing of beauty he is working on. Further, a single item he creates is expensive, because each item is unique and represents a huge investment in time. So I don't think this comparison holds up either.
If you want an accurate model for computer programming, the closest model is that of the mathematician, because really, computer science is a branch of mathematics. It is the branch that deals with implementation and design of algorithms. In a sense, programmers model thought processes; things humans would have to do manually if the computer didn't exist.
When you look at it this way, you're much closer to modelling what's actually going on when a programmer grabs his keyboard. We consider the process an individual human would take to achieve some result; then we codify the process as a set of rules that can be automated and vastly accelerated; then we empower a computer, a lifeless, inanimate object, to perform those rules for us.
We're mathematicians modelling thought for the benefit of our society, creating machines which can enhance the power of our minds. WE are the accelerant speeding the growth of our culture, because WE are the steroid that is causing our intellectual capacity to grow faster than it could ever evolve on its own. Just look at the internet itself: it is so much more vast, and has so much more potential than the library at Alexandria. WE created that. WE made this happen.
And, now, we are considered a burden that must be outsourced. It's ironic, isn't it? Corporations who owe us their very ability to do business worldwide have no gratitude or loyalty for us, and are brushing us aside as though we don't exist. We're just line items to them.
But I'm rambling. Your conceptual approach is that of the mathematician. A design process which mixes equal amounts of knowledge, skill, and inspiration. None of which can be planned like an assembly line.
First of all, private industry was never a particularly good place to work. Add up the noncompetes, the nondisclosures, and the IP agreements, and you have a pretty fair approximation of slavery. Think I'm wrong? If you're fired or laid off, you've basically been discarded without the ability to move to a new company thanks to the noncompete. If you try to flee the plantation and start your own company, you'll get hit with the nondisclosures and IP agreements. Even if your product isn't directly related to your old company's, they'll figure out SOME way of making it look related. They might just try and claim that you've built your new company based on things you were working on at theirs -- even if they don't have a leg to stand on, they can afford to throw legal talent at you and they'll crush you in the courts (remember, they have lawyers on staff). Ever try to hire a lawyer while unemployed?
Then, there are the project managers. I'll admit, there are occasionally good ones. But, all too often, you end up with a PHB: Always leaning on you, looking over your shoulder, trying to force technical decisions on you despite the fact they don't know what they're talking about, trying to set insane schedules and unreasonable deadlines. Because a programmer is generally on salary, PHB's try to force him to work unpaid overtime, often sixty-plus hours a week, because that makes the budget stretch. Or SEEM to stretch, but with suits, that's good enough.
Finally, there's the clear difference in status between management and staff. Programmers are treated like peons in private industry, make no mistake. We're serfs, no more and no less. I used to work in a place where programmers were hired in a wobbly-chair, lamp-in-the-face process. Salesmen would get a fraternity style "rush" complete with sushi and beer. If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.
Add it all up. Private industry = dilbert-inspired hell.
This whole outsourcing thing is just the final icing on the cake. It proves once and for all what management thinks of us: that we're replaceable, nearly-worthless, recipe followers. Fine, I say. Fine with me. I'm GLAD to have their feelings clearly delineated for me. It spares me from having to even briefly consider working with or for them, and it prevents me from ever thinking about building any sort of third-party tool that they might find useful.
I'll stick to other sectors of the economy where my contribution is appreciated, like the public sector or maybe the non-profit sector. And, I'll push my state representiatives to require citizenship for all public-sector programming, including that which is produced by third parties. After all, there IS a security issue here: public sector, government work should NOT be done outside of this country. Public-sector programmers should be bonded, insured, and thoroughly checked out. It might be a good idea to set up regs for banks to do the same -- and any other entity that has to handle private data.
This isn't "protectionism". It's simple common sense.
"Then how do you plan to get your face into a skin for a console shooter?"
;)
Ans: I don't. Why would I? If I'm in FPS mode, I can't SEE my face, so what's the difference anyway? I think you're reaching here, using an extreme thing most people don't do as a justification for using GIMP on a console.
note about college kids and TV's acknowledged... BUT, you can get TVs a lot more cheaply than you can get PCs. And, the smart money in college gets a cheapo laptop, not a desktop PC -- BECAUSE, you can lock your laptop in your footlocker. You can't stop your roommate from (mis)using your PC, potentially getting you in trouble.
As far as making a game that'll run on multiple video cards, let me offer you some advice: acquire an engine, don't write your own. Very few people write their own engines these days. Companies like ID and Valve can afford to roll their own; they have R+D departments and cash to burn. Why waste all your effort trying to compete against colossus players like ID? Acquire a good engine and write to its API. You can download the Quake II engine for free and mod it to your heart's content, with no royalties due as long as you share your source (it's GPL'ed). OR, you can go to www.garagegames.com and buy their Torque engine for 100.00, with no further royalties required. Torque ROCKS. It's what I'm using. It offers some really gorgeous effects, too, although the water effects look nicer on the PC than they do on my iBook. Also, Torque compiles exactly the same on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS/X. Best of all, GarageGames will sell your game for you if it's any good, and hand you a 65% royalty.
You can't beat that with a stick. Of course, I don't think Torque can be compiled for a console, but so what? You can still sell your game's concept and story to a console gaming company. Let them use THEIR R+D to port to the console.
Basically, don't sweat things that other companies have already solved for you.
1. The N64 sucked. I have one, and the controller is horrendous. Don't get me wrong, Rebel Squadron isn't bad for its era, and I do enjoy playing N64 games, but the controller is just nasty. Don't judge controllers by that antique. It's like judging car ergonomics by riding around the back woods in a Model T Ford with bad shocks.
2. As far as using the Gimp on a console, that's fucking stupid. I'm not trying to flame you here, but PLEASE be serious. I do my image editing on my laptop: a maxed out iBook running OS/X. I also do sound editing on it, art on it, and programming as well (C++). I think the issue here is that you should use a tool for tasks it is suited for. You don't use a dremel moto-tool to hammer nails, and you shouldn't use a console for image editing.
3. RTS games work just fine on a console, with the controller. I had a wonderful time playing Alien Vs. Predator Extinction on my XBox, and I didn't feel the controller impeded me in any way. In fact, it was a hell of a lot more comfortable than a mouse and keyboard.
4. FINALLY, my console + TV setup cost me two hundred for the console (they're even cheaper now) and maybe another couple of hundred for my 27" TV (I got it a long time ago, I think it was maybe three hundred, tops). So we're talking about maybe five hundred, except the television is something most PC users have also. So you can really only consider the console. In other words, I paid 200 bucks for the ability to play games on my TV; you paid a hell of a lot more than I did, guaranteed (that TV-ready video card, for example, and having to max out and keep upgrading your PC, and so on).
4. As far as writing games go, so what? If you want to develop a game, write for the PC. If your game is any good, maybe someone will pick it up. If it catches any buzz, a large company might want to license it from you, and port it to whatever console they have a license for. IF you use DirectX 9, porting your game to the Xbox will be easy enough that you'll be able to shop your game demo on a laptop to companies that might want to develop it. Then THEY develop it, using THEIR license, and YOU get a big fat royalty. Or didn't you think of that?
Maybe you SHOULD think of it.
It's NOT "all good". It's wrong to shop jobs overseas, because you're selling out your own people to help your bottom line. It's a basic issue of right and wrong. American companies want to SELL us their overpriced, shoddily made crap, don't they? But they don't want to pay us a living wage, or let us keep our jobs and dignity, or even treat us with respect, because someone, somewhere can be had for less money.
I say, "FINE." Let them stab their own people in the back. Let them demonstrate their low character, their complete lack of honor, their craven greed and their shallow, evil natures. It's fine with me! I'll adapt, as will most of my fellow Americans. Here's what we'll do:
1. Refuse to work for corporations, period. There are many other ways to work for a living. Every town in the country has numerous small businesses which need staff. Start a business yourself. Open a coffee shop, a bookstore, or maybe a bar. Use a small business loan if you don't have cash on hand. If you're a programmer, build something interesting and sell it. Or join civil service, be a cop, or a sysadmin in your town hall. Do ANYTHING except work for a corporation. And make that your policy.
2. Refuse to show corporations any loyalty whatsoever. Every time some big-time outsourcer like GMC tries to wrap itself in the flag and sell you a truck, buy a Toyota instead. At least the Japanese are hiring Americans to work in their plants.
3. Refuse to give corporate America any breaks at all. Don't invest in their stocks, don't accept their credit cards (except, naturally, for that one emergency card we all have), and don't sign on for their services. Take the attitude, as I do, that corporate America is dead to you.
4. If you have any money, put it in the Swiss bank. At least then, no American corporations are benefiting from its use.
And, finally,
lobby your representiatives so that no government contracts or jobs can be farmed out overseas -- keep at least ONE sector of employment in this country for the taxpayers, for cryin' out loud...
Just my 2c.
No, no, no.
The joypad joysticks are pressure sensitive. Apply a small amount of force, and you get fine aiming and fine control. Apply a lot of force and you get proportionally more movement. You get used to it very quickly, and you get to the point where it's very, very easy to handle a sniper rifle. Case in point: Medal of Honor: Frontline. I've been sniping nazis for a while now; it's a breeze. I usually get a head shot, even from a long distance. The trick is to get a nice joypad. I have a StormChaser, which is big and roomy, and very comfortable with rubberized grips. The stock Playstation joypads are tiny, for tiny, graceful little japanese hands. I'm a New Yorker; my hands are the size of frying pans. 'Course, my XBox has a big, comfy controller so the stock one was just fine...
About the thumb issue:
You DO have fingers in addition to your thumbs, right? And, we're not talking about changing weapons, because that is usually handled by one of the buttons on the right side of the controller. We're talking about inventory items and special keys, which you would be using if you weren't stuck on relatively uncomplicated deathmatch games (which have very few controls that matter). Also please realize that each joystick can also be pushed AS A BUTTON, i.e. you push down on them and you feel a little click. It's a nice feature. Usually something important is mapped to this.
Just to show you how silly your idea that console controllers aren't versatile is, I'll point out that most modern controllers have two to four triggers under your index fingers; four directional buttons near your left hand; four directional buttons near your right hand; one joystick under each thumb with an additional function when they're pressed directly; and two buttons in the center (which are usually the pause game and options controls).
With that many buttons literally right under your fingers, I'd say that joypads are actually far more ergonomic than your keyboard and mouse. I've been playing with them for a long time, and have yet to cramp up after a several-hour gaming marathon.
Of course, we haven't brought up the REAL advantage game consoles have over computers: they don't damage your eyesight. Usually, your large-screen television is more than six feet away, which lets you focus for distance, which relaxes your eye muscles. A computer screen is rarely more than two feet away, which leads to nearsightedness and thick glasses (believe me, being nearsighted, I know).
Going slowly blind, developing tennis elbow from mousing, and getting severe carpal tunnel syndrome might be a high price to pay for an illusory improvement in reaction time, I think. Besides, all your friends see you going blind and getting tennis elbow and end up wondering how big your porn collection is. Too embarassing!
Well, that's a little silly. I don't think it's a bandwidth problem, I think it amounts to which style of controller an individual prefers. Frankly, I like the joypads better than the mouse/keyboard combo nowadays. They're so much easier in some ways -- for example, you can usually access inventory items and special functions without taking your thumb off the left joystick. On a keyboard, you have to move your hand usually, which leaves you temporarily vulnerable.
"What's wrong with the open source community":
1. We don't get laid nearly enough. For some reason, chicks don't seem to dig us (or at least, me).
2. We don't get paid nearly enough. IT is in a shambles, and will be for a while yet. Sigh...
3. People look down on us because instead of watching senseless, pointless games like football, we play senseless, pointless games like Doom -- the thing that would improve MY life 100% would be for the bar-going, sports-snarfing public to suddenly realize, "Hey! Watching 22 grown men bump into one another ISN'T more mature than playing video games!"
4. People just don't seem to get the fact that programming is an art. They still treat us like a bunch of low-skill manual laborers.
Sigh...
Hey, things change all the time. I've got a Playstation and an XBox, and I love both of them. I'm having an absolutely kick-ass time playing FPS games on both consoles, and I finished Aliens Vs. Predator Extinction on the XBox a while ago. More FPS and RTS games are coming out all the time.
Another issue: buy a console and you don't have to upgrade for years. Possibly a lot of years. Offloading the most strenuous software you'll ever use from your PC to a console means your PC might NEVER need to be upgraded. It saves money over time, more than you might think.
Here's one for the Linux crowd: buy a console and it won't matter that you can't find many games for Linux. You'll be free to choose the O/S of your choice for your PC, freeing you to really leverage the machine's power, because you'll still be able to game to your heart's content. No dual-booting necessary.
Anyway, you see where I'm coming from. I love PC games, don't get me wrong, but I think consoles are winning because they're more convenient, cheaper long-term, and of high enough quality that the switch is painless.
Just a few thoughts...
I keep hearing people say they think outsourcing to India (et al) is "sensible", conservative, etc. It may appear to be from the management perspective, but it really isn't. There's a huge cost, especially when you're dealing with IT, and the business community hasn't really caught on yet. Consider:
1. Work that is outsourced may be unmaintainable. The outsourcing company may go out of business, they may end their relationship with you, they may make unreasonable demands forcing you to try to find a new vendor... And, when you try to get a technology transfer (i.e. the source code to all that stuff they coded) they might just tell you "no way". You'll have no recourse whatsoever. Remember, US laws only extend to the border.
2. When you transfer all that control to an external source (control of your IT, your data, and your clerical functions is control of your company, make no mistake), you LOSE that control yourself. Do you really trust a bunch of complete strangers to not be tempted by this "opportunity"? There have already been cases of extortion and blackmail. The incidence of this is going to go up, not down. Not to mention that #1 applies here, too; if a company goes under, who's controlling your company NOW? It could be Goodnight, Irene. Would YOU like to be the one to explain this to your stockholders?
3. Outsourced code isn't necessarily going to follow any specific standard, or even the specs you send over. Because, after all, what are you going to do about it if you don't like it? Nothing, that's what; you're ten thousand miles away, you don't have any programmers left on staff to check their work, and anyway, their laws are different from ours and you're not going to get anywhere even if you DO pursue it. You have to accept whatever they decide to give you. And they know it.
4. Three words that should make you drop a load in your pants: "third party tools". You don't know what your outsourcing friends are putting in your code; you don't know if they own licences to it; you don't know if it works or if it'll continue to work past its next revision, and you don't know if you'll be able to maintain it. Tool companies go out of business, too, their assets get bought by companies (like, say, your competitors). This can be really dangerous, especially with all the piracy going on overseas. Do you want to be the guy who has to explain the IP lawsuit to your stockholders?
I could go on but you get the idea. Even using H1-Bs here in this country isn't entirely safe. When an H1-B or an L-1 goes back home, he effectively drops off the face of the earth. Do you think he's going to fly over at the drop of a hat to maintain your code when it breaks? Do you even have him in your rolodex? Probably not. Basically, if it breaks, you're rewriting it with the next crop of consultants, and so on, forever. If this sounds stable or safe to you, more power to you, but it makes my head ache.
It's not as "sensible" or "conservative" as it looks. Companies are cutting their own throats for a short term bump in stock prices.
I think this is standard think-tank talk. If they don't add in some completely goofy estimate about how rich all people will suddenly become, they won't be taken seriously by the other goofy futurists. I mean, it'd be like they *weren't even trying*!
Actually, I think a much more reasonable prediction is this:
They build this super solar-based power generation system, which would let them switch over to a hydrogen economy, etc and so forth. So, they come up with hydrogen powered everything that they then sell to private citizens, who end up deep in debt buying all the new stuff they'll need now that petrofuels are no longer available. New cars, new lawn mowers, new electric scooters, you get the idea. Everything is automated and robotic, so they don't have to hire anyone to man all of their new power generation plants, except for maybe a mechanical engineer here and there to throw switches and watch gauges, and offer his head on a platter when things go wrong (gotta blame SOMEONE). And, things stay pretty much the way they are now, except no gasoline hikes and no smog.
No one gets rich, although the rich get richer.
Everyone who used to work in a power plant or a gas station is now unemployed.
And, no one's life is particularly changed at all.
Yawn. I'm gonna go watch FLCL now. Haruko ROCKS!