So your manager wants more project managers. Managing managers is his/her goal. There is status in that. Managing individual contributors is hard...lots of busy work.
So is that Capitalism going on in Iowa? Why does somebody getting unemployment piss Iowans off....but car dealerships being protected form new competition does not piss Iowans off. Maybe Fox News tells Iowans when to be pissed off and when not to be pissed off.
Not to mention NASA. The market and private enterprise could never have put a man on the moon in 10 years. Government set the strategy and arranged for private companies to make it happen.
Note that the space program (and military) drove the creation of technology to create commercial integrated circuits. How convenient to forget the help that government provides after the fact.
Of course without that arrogance - perhaps he would never have become the effective manager that he once was.
OLTP and traditional reporting are just reinventing the wheel- one can just slightly modify an open source program, change the UI and port to a new platform, and whammo, you've got your OLTP and traditional reporting.
Agreed about ID - mostly because I believe their motivation is to preserve the notion that the "The Bible" - whatever version or translation I guess - is historical, prophetic, Divinely inspired and hence unerring...assuming proper interpretation by them...(see Salem witch trials)
What's so sad is that I think there are interesting challenges to Big Bang that you can consider simply by looking at what science tells us about the nature of time itself.
At relative high speeds it acts strangely different than our normal experiences anticipate and same when you examine very small things and very small distances.
I suggest one motivation for the big bang is that we observe that time going forward moment by moment - so we assume it is the way we got here in the first place. I say assume because you only observe the moment. Not the past and not the future. With science we observe and record - connecting the moments.
But if we see the limits to our understanding about the nature of time as I suggest above, we should be more challenging about the big bang. Science once thought - and vigorously defended the fact that the world was flat.
As an alternative - for example - consider that "life is but a dream". Consider yourself dreaming that you are driving your car to work. If a passenger in your dream asks you how did we get here the dreaming driving you would say - big bang. If the passenger asked you how old the universe is you would say billions and billions...
OK now you wake up and I ask the "awakened" you - when did time begin for the dreaming you....and you would reply - last night. Who's right?
The basis for science is objectivity. We establish and drive to a shared consensus using the scientific method and our education system. We further believe that in a civilized society the shared consensus forms the basis of our interactions and how we deal fairly with each other. This is why ID is wrong push on others. It's not objective.
But since science is about observing and recording - we can see historically that our theories can be - no will be eventually spectacularly wrong.
Time could work in ways much differently than we intuitively think about now. It's strange behavior appearing at the margins of our perception should be an indicator that it's time to consider this.
I've worked on target tracking and target recognition systems - one area of specialty in the author's resume. Many image processing algorithms are based on differential equations, fourier transforms, cellular automata, statistics, etc. When the algorthms are first specified - there's little actual code in sight. Most are described with elaborate mathematical constructions. Computers come in when they are interested in understanding roundoff or trying to solve performance issues or trying to figure out how to jam all that heat-sensitive equipment into the nose cone of a missile. These folks need to also understand computer hardware architecture, and of course - computer science - math and all.
I think his point is that today, the industry is so broad - that many aspects of computer science never come into play. Deployment specialists, configuration control managers, graphic artists, technical writers, testers and test script writing, "business" requirements analysis, on and on. How important is it for these folks to understand Turing machines?
I don't think that computer science departments should stop teaching the science of computing. And I don't think the demand for people who can do computer science will diminish. But the field has exploded. Cost of delivering software intensive systems is now the main focus. Software engineering and software architecture concerns now dominate.
...where the introduction of an enterprise portal has put lots of department-level ASP developers and "web designers" out of business. I know lots of portals fail and process maturity affects all aspects of this. But management thinking is that it creates a famework (portals and JSR 168 portlets) that can deliver higher value and improve IT ROI.
In reviewing the 100's of intranet sites we found many implementations of news, calander, security, document storage, and metadata search that will be replaced by a a standard set of portlets. The plan is that this frees up money for other more strategic - and maybe less outsourcable IT activities.
So an ASP developer that has not learned about enterprise development (portal will have over 20,000 employees accessing it) - or a "Web designer for technology companies" that isn't up on "Knowlege Management" concepts would really be feeling it where I work right now.
Saying that we need to cut our own throats to statisfy THEIR needs -- or they'll simply be "forced" to turn to third-world dirt-hut coders -- amounts to the same thing.
I hear you. Listening to Bill Gates the other day talk about how important it is to move to China and India for developers made me laugh out loud.
My original post referred to the parent's reference to science's ability to describe actual reality which I took issue with....a subtle point which those posting after me missed entirely....
I'll be for free-trade and open markets when the U.S. government stops using our militay to secure friendly environments overseas for our large corps to operate under. The cost of doing business overseas is lower because our military - at U.S. taxpayer expense - artificially removes the real risks of setting up shop in a foreign country.
In advanced countries where populations and governments are stable, people make more money. So nobody is offended by outsourcing to France, germany, England...etc...it's all these 3rd world nations - where anything can happen - absent the threat of the U.S. military.
Lastly, we should not allow U.S. Corps to do business where labor is not protected with sufficient safety regulations, where there is abuse of the environment, or where human rights are being violated. As a community human beings, Americans hold these values to be self-evident - as CEO's - we do not.
He took a worldview that said that mathematics is reality. The Church contended that mathematics is only a model of reality.
There are two main world views that my reading has uncovered....those who think that consciousness is a product of the material world. And those who think that the material world is a product of consciousness.
The astrology, alchemy, geometry, references are much older than Newton....they predated him by two thousand years at least. They are meant to be interpreted literally to non-initiates. For those with "eyes to see," these "pseudo-sciences" are allegorical treatments of the nature of the "inner-life." The study of the inner-life was not afforded to the masses....but only to those who were able to make proper use of the information and training....like Perl.
Re:What was crazier to think at that time?
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What's "crazier" than claming that there are particles that contain no mass, or objects that come into existence only after someone looks at them.
The references to alchemy need to be understood in terms of the knowlege of the inner-self. Newton, Pythagoras, etc. were not interested in describing such "matters" to those without "eyes to see."
Why not adapt by enlisting in the Army. From what I can see, that's where all the job growth and investment is taking place.
Why take the low-tech labor intensive approach to creating wealth when tons of wealth are just sitting there in other countries for the taking. You get to cut out all those profit-consuming design , development, and manufacturing jobs...and focus your efforts in the "wealth-extraction" phase....which is really the only important pase of any operation.
The scary side of the equation is the extent to which companies are pushing people out of the equations. The ever dropping margins means a tougher job market for slashdotters. Or, how should I say it. More work for lower pay.
But does not the parent say that his company ended uo NOT saving the money they could have? So the proplem is that they don't know HOW to save money. That implies that they don't really know what they are doing and how much it's costing them. How can Linux help that?
Well first of all you have some real support from the Ayn Rand-cult of moderators here which mod's up your still unsupported wild accusations while leaving my valid criticism of your remarks scored low. It's particularly gross since YOU claimed the original poster did not back up their claims and now - after two postings, you still offer no evidence other than anecdotal stories.
But on Slashdot...once the subject moves off of Linux and open source this problem is common. A real rant-o-rama.
So this parent is complaining that his parent "never backed up their claims"....but wants to go on the record that social promotion is the "KEY problem in out education system." He does this while providing nothing but anecdotal stories from some mad NYC parents, things his dad told him and finishes off with "the NEA is terribly corrupt." Not just corrupt, but "terribly " corrupt - but he never backes up HIS claims.
I'm sorry but the only evidence this individual has shown that the educational system is a failure is his own posting.
Slashdot Mirror
So your manager wants more project managers. Managing managers is his/her goal. There is status in that. Managing individual contributors is hard...lots of busy work.
So is that Capitalism going on in Iowa? Why does somebody getting unemployment piss Iowans off....but car dealerships being protected form new competition does not piss Iowans off. Maybe Fox News tells Iowans when to be pissed off and when not to be pissed off.
Dude...Google "germany" "tariff"
Not to mention NASA. The market and private enterprise could never have put a man on the moon in 10 years. Government set the strategy and arranged for private companies to make it happen.
Note that the space program (and military) drove the creation of technology to create commercial integrated circuits. How convenient to forget the help that government provides after the fact.
Of course without that arrogance - perhaps he would never have become the effective manager that he once was.
Call me when he can dance like the gay Tin-Man in Wizard of Oz. Oh and blow smoke out his head.
OLTP and traditional reporting are just reinventing the wheel- one can just slightly modify an open source program, change the UI and port to a new platform, and whammo, you've got your OLTP and traditional reporting.
whammo is the operative term here....jeeze
Transactions & triggers & a whole lot more....
Agreed about ID - mostly because I believe their motivation is to preserve the notion that the "The Bible" - whatever version or translation I guess - is historical, prophetic, Divinely inspired and hence unerring...assuming proper interpretation by them...(see Salem witch trials)
What's so sad is that I think there are interesting challenges to Big Bang that you can consider simply by looking at what science tells us about the nature of time itself.
At relative high speeds it acts strangely different than our normal experiences anticipate and same when you examine very small things and very small distances.
I suggest one motivation for the big bang is that we observe that time going forward moment by moment - so we assume it is the way we got here in the first place. I say assume because you only observe the moment. Not the past and not the future. With science we observe and record - connecting the moments.
But if we see the limits to our understanding about the nature of time as I suggest above, we should be more challenging about the big bang. Science once thought - and vigorously defended the fact that the world was flat.
As an alternative - for example - consider that "life is but a dream". Consider yourself dreaming that you are driving your car to work. If a passenger in your dream asks you how did we get here the dreaming driving you would say - big bang. If the passenger asked you how old the universe is you would say billions and billions...
OK now you wake up and I ask the "awakened" you - when did time begin for the dreaming you....and you would reply - last night. Who's right?
The basis for science is objectivity. We establish and drive to a shared consensus using the scientific method and our education system. We further believe that in a civilized society the shared consensus forms the basis of our interactions and how we deal fairly with each other. This is why ID is wrong push on others. It's not objective.
But since science is about observing and recording - we can see historically that our theories can be - no will be eventually spectacularly wrong.
Time could work in ways much differently than we intuitively think about now. It's strange behavior appearing at the margins of our perception should be an indicator that it's time to consider this.
I've worked on target tracking and target recognition systems - one area of specialty in the author's resume. Many image processing algorithms are based on differential equations, fourier transforms, cellular automata, statistics, etc. When the algorthms are first specified - there's little actual code in sight. Most are described with elaborate mathematical constructions. Computers come in when they are interested in understanding roundoff or trying to solve performance issues or trying to figure out how to jam all that heat-sensitive equipment into the nose cone of a missile. These folks need to also understand computer hardware architecture, and of course - computer science - math and all.
I think his point is that today, the industry is so broad - that many aspects of computer science never come into play. Deployment specialists, configuration control managers, graphic artists, technical writers, testers and test script writing, "business" requirements analysis, on and on. How important is it for these folks to understand Turing machines?
I don't think that computer science departments should stop teaching the science of computing. And I don't think the demand for people who can do computer science will diminish. But the field has exploded. Cost of delivering software intensive systems is now the main focus. Software engineering and software architecture concerns now dominate.
Stalin was an athiest and he murdered 65 million people. Go to college or something will you.
...where the introduction of an enterprise portal has put lots of department-level ASP developers and "web designers" out of business. I know lots of portals fail and process maturity affects all aspects of this. But management thinking is that it creates a famework (portals and JSR 168 portlets) that can deliver higher value and improve IT ROI.
In reviewing the 100's of intranet sites we found many implementations of news, calander, security, document storage, and metadata search that will be replaced by a a standard set of portlets. The plan is that this frees up money for other more strategic - and maybe less outsourcable IT activities.
So an ASP developer that has not learned about enterprise development (portal will have over 20,000 employees accessing it) - or a "Web designer for technology companies" that isn't up on "Knowlege Management" concepts would really be feeling it where I work right now.
Saying that we need to cut our own throats to statisfy THEIR needs -- or they'll simply be "forced" to turn to third-world dirt-hut coders -- amounts to the same thing.
I hear you. Listening to Bill Gates the other day talk about how important it is to move to China and India for developers made me laugh out loud.
Free programers good...
Free software bad....
My original post referred to the parent's reference to science's ability to describe actual reality which I took issue with....a subtle point which those posting after me missed entirely....
bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe
Didn't scientists believe that the sun went around the earth about that time?
i bet that we will start seeing more huggy type marketing as longhorn nears its release.
Maybe they should change the name to "Softhorn"
I'll be for free-trade and open markets when the U.S. government stops using our militay to secure friendly environments overseas for our large corps to operate under. The cost of doing business overseas is lower because our military - at U.S. taxpayer expense - artificially removes the real risks of setting up shop in a foreign country.
In advanced countries where populations and governments are stable, people make more money. So nobody is offended by outsourcing to France, germany, England...etc...it's all these 3rd world nations - where anything can happen - absent the threat of the U.S. military.
Lastly, we should not allow U.S. Corps to do business where labor is not protected with sufficient safety regulations, where there is abuse of the environment, or where human rights are being violated. As a community human beings, Americans hold these values to be self-evident - as CEO's - we do not.
He took a worldview that said that mathematics is reality. The Church contended that mathematics is only a model of reality.
There are two main world views that my reading has uncovered....those who think that consciousness is a product of the material world. And those who think that the material world is a product of consciousness.
The astrology, alchemy, geometry, references are much older than Newton....they predated him by two thousand years at least. They are meant to be interpreted literally to non-initiates. For those with "eyes to see," these "pseudo-sciences" are allegorical treatments of the nature of the "inner-life." The study of the inner-life was not afforded to the masses....but only to those who were able to make proper use of the information and training....like Perl.
What's "crazier" than claming that there are particles that contain no mass, or objects that come into existence only after someone looks at them.
The references to alchemy need to be understood in terms of the knowlege of the inner-self. Newton, Pythagoras, etc. were not interested in describing such "matters" to those without "eyes to see."
Data Warehouse "marketing" applications scan millions of rows and have to cache intermediate result sets of 50 - 100 megs each....
Stored procedures did not work well for this (in 1999) because it was much faster to sort these intermediate result sets outside the database.
We did this stuff in perl on the database box.
Why not adapt by enlisting in the Army. From what I can see, that's where all the job growth and investment is taking place.
....adapt!
Why take the low-tech labor intensive approach to creating wealth when tons of wealth are just sitting there in other countries for the taking. You get to cut out all those profit-consuming design , development, and manufacturing jobs...and focus your efforts in the "wealth-extraction" phase....which is really the only important pase of any operation.
Come-on guys (and gals)
Indians...
porno....
The scary side of the equation is the extent to which companies are pushing people out of the equations. The ever dropping margins means a tougher job market for slashdotters. Or, how should I say it. More work for lower pay.
But does not the parent say that his company ended uo NOT saving the money they could have? So the proplem is that they don't know HOW to save money. That implies that they don't really know what they are doing and how much it's costing them. How can Linux help that?
Well first of all you have some real support from the Ayn Rand-cult of moderators here which mod's up your still unsupported wild accusations while leaving my valid criticism of your remarks scored low. It's particularly gross since YOU claimed the original poster did not back up their claims and now - after two postings, you still offer no evidence other than anecdotal stories.
But on Slashdot...once the subject moves off of Linux and open source this problem is common.
A real rant-o-rama.
So this parent is complaining that his parent "never backed up their claims"....but wants to go on the record that social promotion is the "KEY problem in out education system." He does this while providing nothing but anecdotal stories from some mad NYC parents, things his dad told him and finishes off with "the NEA is terribly corrupt." Not just corrupt, but "terribly " corrupt - but he never backes up HIS claims.
I'm sorry but the only evidence this individual has shown that the educational system is a failure is his own posting.