can younger developers learn new tricks? most of the ones i see are trying to imitate techniques from 90's. or worse, from the 70's. they will argue till they are blue in the face, that those were the best ones. largely because they don't even know how scalability problems arise and how they have long been addressed. the reason they are biased against older developers is that the younger crowd doesn't know how to write anything but a throw-away proof-of-concept. they think there is no need for design. and for every 2 hours they save on design they waste 2 weeks of someone's effort to make backwards prototypes work. the truth is that writing software is akin to writing prose. there are those who'll never write anything but 3rd page of a local paper and those who'll write timeless novels. most new developer are just like new writers -- thinking they deserve a job at ny times while completely unable to produce something of lasting value.
Logically, you are basically engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Discussion rather than attack. And discussing the man instead of the specifics of his arguments is not a logical fallacy when the man is one of the subjects of the conversation. Every appeal to authority argument does make the authority in question part of the conversation. The Slashdot post didn't say "some rich guy" or "an editor of a magazine". It named Forbes in order to use the weight of his name to support the argument he made. His name was not mentioned as a matter of fact. It was unquestionably mentioned in order to support the arguments. Last chance: admit that you are wrong. You knee jerk reaction to the other superficial 'net arguments missed the subtlety of the argument here. By trying to emphasize what you think is "important to discuss" you missed the point which was actually being discussed.
I made no claim of conspiracy. I accused Forbes of cynicism and deception. But not of conspiracy. Conspiracy requires a secret and a group of people working together. Otherwise, it's not a conspiracy. I did not attribute to Forbes any type of group membership. So no conspiracy claim was made.
Well, that post was a little better, at least you managed to indicate that you were at least vaguely aware of what he is saying.
Once again, that's irrelevant. The whole point of the original Slashot post was to argue by appealing to authority (Forbes). In examining such argument, it is more important to examine incentives of the said authority than any specific points that the authority had made. The points the authority had made very likely were made on numerous occasions before and were simply repeated as a position statement.
You are begging the question of whether he even cares if bitcoin goes up or down. He may be more interested in hearing his own voice.
He is much more deliberate than that. But that's just my opinion based on what I know of him. If you think otherwise, I am ok with agreeing to disagree.
The biggest problem with your post is you didn't even discuss his main points
It's irrelevant. Each position has pros and cons. You can advocate for a position by emphasizing its pros or advocate against a position by emphasizing its cons. Since every outcome depends on confluence of multiple events (some of which have yet to occur or not occur in the future), trying to discuss semantics of whether bitcoin is "money" or only tangentially relevant to whether events will line up to make it money. Full disclosure: I do not, nor have I ever owned any bitcoins.
Investment doesn't always take the form of putting money in liquid instruments. It could often mean exchanging money (in one form or another) for something which gives control over something which may have value in the future. Jim Rogers (a fairly famous investor) claims that he even invests in North Korea (just in case they do take the right path) by investing in their rare stamps. Not all investment is investment in "business" (ie, human activity which creates life-enabling products).
The main premise in Judo is to use opponent's strength against them. Forbes knows he sounds snooty. Which is why he takes on a position contrary to the one he actually wants to advocate. Let's say he loaded up on Bitcoins and he wants them to go up. His choices are (1) stay silent; (2) promote it; (3) oppose it. Staying silent obviously will not help him cause. Promoting it will not help his cause because the kinds of people who would take him at his word are not the kinds of people to seek out an alternative currency (he is all about orthodoxy). But he can use the fact that anyone seeking to oppose orthodoxy would do the opposite of what he'd recommend (this is Judo). Oh, and if he really didn't think much of Bitcoin, he would simply not comment.
But the vast, vast majority of the Chinese workforce are not at all well educated. That's why they're cheap. They work in sweatshops, making shiploads of cheap Chinese crap to sell both to China and to the rest of the world.
Education is cheap. All of modern technology was created by people who had no access to technology, but had the education and the erudition on top of it. The primary school education is NOT tiered in China. There are smart Chinese who rise above their peers, but they rise from the same education level as their peers. Being well-educated does not preclude one from working in a sweatshop. An average Chinese peasant has gone though the same schooling as an average Chinese city dweller. In fact, they have an occasional problem of producing more technical university graduates than the economy can accommodate. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/business/as-graduates-rise-in-china-office-jobs-fail-to-keep-up.html
Compare that with the well-known Japanese obsession for perfectionism, for doing things right. I consider that attention to quality an important part, maybe the most important part, of one's work ethic.
I would consider that a difference in business styles rather than in work-ethic. I would think that a merchant who keeps his shop open 10 hours a day, 7 days a week has a high work ethic even if the shop sells crap. So I guess I would fundamentally disagree. Near-ocd attention to quality is not a component of work-ethic. There may be an overlap between those with high work ethic and those who are committed to quality work. But neither is a prerequisite of the other.
Ok, now imagine supporting that code base and not being allowed to change anything significantly without lawyers getting involved. Still wanna write code? Because that's essentially movies have become.
Yes, they do have a well-educated high-work-ethic workforce. You are confusing Chinese with Indians. Indians have a very tiered society (and, by extension, education). Most Chinese go through the same education system. The Chinese who come to this country have very decent level of technical education. The same is true of the ones who don't come here. They ARE cheaper -- there is no question about that. But they are also fairly well-educated. Not sure why you would question their work ethic. Chinese culture is not known (to the best of my knowledge) with advocating leisure or idleness. I could be wrong and would welcome any link you might have that would educate me as to why I am wrong.
It's called a "resume". Just like a any service provider, I only get paid if I find ways to make myself useful. That's as true of employees as it is of companies providing useful goods and services. Unions are there to counter that trend. By definition, that means they are there to get people pay for being useless.
Sure. In fact, I would LOVE to have my salary increased by the amount spent on my health insurance. I am certain that, even if I were to get a high-cost disease (like cancer), I would still come out ahead during my lifetime.
pension plan
The same one which will bankrupt the company and will leave me without the plan and the future employees without a job? I guess I'll have to. But, hey, at least, if I spend that money investing (conservatively), I'll still come out ahead vs union reducing the job opportunities and promoting mediocrity in the work place.
lunch break
Just like free coffee, that's there to improve productivity, so any good management would want to institute that... it's just more profitable to have than not to have it. Unions' taking credit for it are plainly lying (but we already know that you unions are lying when they speak).
40-hour work week
No such thing.
compensation for crippling workplace injuries
Tort suits are much more effective at stopping these than unions are.
right to work in a properly ventilated and lighted building
I prefer less light. But thanks. Proper ventilation? Yeah, that's going to be important when the technology makes it cheaper to have healthy workers than the money spent on ventilation. I am sure unions will take the credit for improvement's in technology? Despite resisting them all the way?
Don't worry, you'll still get an extra three hours off on Sundays, to attend the mandatory chapel service and hear how God wants you to be a proper obedient worker.
Hmm. Funny, how you are arguing against a lifestyle which existed 100 years ago... and not against a life style which exists in non-union countries today. The conditions when unions provided more benefit than harm were a historical anomaly. That time is gone. And as soon as it disappeared, the unions became a source of harm for the workers. That's why most of the work force is not unionized.
You are misinforming them. If it's a C++ job that wants to pay 50-60k, you should let them know it's a C job. Otherwise, they might stick some unfortunate developer in a team which takes pride in learning nothing for 20 years and finding out that arrogance doesn't scale very well.
Nothing. There is absolutely nothing neat about them. They are made of scum. Anyone who is a member of a union and doesn't want that to change is scum.
They're made of the people in them.
No. They are not. Not even close. As every organization which exists for the sole purpose of fighting for power, it is guided by the desires of the least common denominator of its members. Only the power hungry will rise to its top because the rest will be outmaneuvered. So you are presented with a an organization which exists for the sole purpose of obtaining more power for itself and guided by power-hungry elite. I'll take my chances with "management" before the union any day. At least for management power is only one of many priorities. For unions, it's not.
Yeah, but if our code gets as bad as our movies (and yes, I am blaming the bad movies and awful IP laws on SAG), wouldn't we rather do something other than code? Who'd want the product of their life to be something as embarrassing as a Hollywood movie?
Well, they could use art to advocate for social changes that are catastrophic. Or think smaller... they could advocate for a scientific view-point to be accepted without further examination.... thereby short-circuiting the scientific method and causing great damage not only the science they pollute but also to the general-population view on how science is done.
Why would you even bother arguing with someone who is trying to advocate for moral relativism by appealing to theory or relativity? This is one of the oldest ways of identifying a wannabe.
I don't think I'd have a problem with robots giving me tickets as long as it were robots who'd then have to come and arrest me in case I don't pay the said tickets. Or it were robots that would pull me over for driving with tickets on my record. But if it is other human being who now take orders from computers based on decisions made by computers, it's over. As long as technology is used to observe, we are civilized. But the moment technology becomes a substitute for judgement (a uniquely human faculty), we lose the ability to face our accusers. It is IMPOSSIBLE (provably so... mathematically provably) to predict all future scenarios. Almost by definition, if it is the technology that makes the decisions, then the burden of proof is shifted to the accused... the moment we lose our responsibility for judgement, as humans, is the moment we lose civilization.
It's not even remotely true, but hey it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, so I will not bother to debunk it. Given the level of sadistic vitriol in your statement, you already heard the rational arguments which prove you wrong, but you want to cherry pick facts which make it seem like you are right and spew them, anyway. Have at it.
Reagan's interest in "High Tech" was mostly limited to military applications
You are remembering things through the delusional lens of the modern left. Having lived in the Soviet Union in the 80's, I actually remember what Reagan talked about when describing his America. VCRs were actually one of the novelties he mentioned by name as the "modern day" American technological miracle. And he was right. Ability to view a movie at will with essentially no equipment in addition to the TV was a huge leap forward in technology. HUGE. But, judging from your other comments, you are of the ilk that doesn't comprehend the advantage of a society which produces what people want over the society which produces what smart benevolent few figure out that the people need.
He killed financial support for solar and other alternative energy technologies
Well, technically FDR killed it by creating the huge national subsidy to the car companies in the form of interstate highway system. But any subsidies to "alternative" energy development at the time of Reagan would have been as dumb as they are today... maybe a LITTLE less dumb. Simply put, the opposite of "cost effective" is "wasteful." Yes, I know of the logic behind the singularity argument. No, it doesn't change the argument in this particular case.
America has fallen behind Asia and even Europe
That's just idiotic. But ok, this argument is not even worth having. Go ahead.. spew a few cherry picked statistics, pat yourself on the back that your backed your statement with "facts" and that conservative hate "facts." And move on. This type of stupidity is as fun to debunk as arguing with other religious nuts (ie, not at all).
Slashdot Mirror
can younger developers learn new tricks? most of the ones i see are trying to imitate techniques from 90's. or worse, from the 70's. they will argue till they are blue in the face, that those were the best ones. largely because they don't even know how scalability problems arise and how they have long been addressed. the reason they are biased against older developers is that the younger crowd doesn't know how to write anything but a throw-away proof-of-concept. they think there is no need for design. and for every 2 hours they save on design they waste 2 weeks of someone's effort to make backwards prototypes work. the truth is that writing software is akin to writing prose. there are those who'll never write anything but 3rd page of a local paper and those who'll write timeless novels. most new developer are just like new writers -- thinking they deserve a job at ny times while completely unable to produce something of lasting value.
True, if you're just aiming for an entertaining conversation, ad hominem can be very effective.
Or if one is discussing the topic at hand and the person is part of the discussion.
Last chance? Or what? You'll punch me through the internet?
Or I'll conclude that I pegged you right.
Logically, you are basically engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Discussion rather than attack. And discussing the man instead of the specifics of his arguments is not a logical fallacy when the man is one of the subjects of the conversation. Every appeal to authority argument does make the authority in question part of the conversation. The Slashdot post didn't say "some rich guy" or "an editor of a magazine". It named Forbes in order to use the weight of his name to support the argument he made. His name was not mentioned as a matter of fact. It was unquestionably mentioned in order to support the arguments. Last chance: admit that you are wrong. You knee jerk reaction to the other superficial 'net arguments missed the subtlety of the argument here. By trying to emphasize what you think is "important to discuss" you missed the point which was actually being discussed.
I made no claim of conspiracy. I accused Forbes of cynicism and deception. But not of conspiracy. Conspiracy requires a secret and a group of people working together. Otherwise, it's not a conspiracy. I did not attribute to Forbes any type of group membership. So no conspiracy claim was made.
Didn't read past that sentence, did you? Because the next sentence debunked your point.
Well, that post was a little better, at least you managed to indicate that you were at least vaguely aware of what he is saying.
Once again, that's irrelevant. The whole point of the original Slashot post was to argue by appealing to authority (Forbes). In examining such argument, it is more important to examine incentives of the said authority than any specific points that the authority had made. The points the authority had made very likely were made on numerous occasions before and were simply repeated as a position statement.
You are begging the question of whether he even cares if bitcoin goes up or down. He may be more interested in hearing his own voice.
He is much more deliberate than that. But that's just my opinion based on what I know of him. If you think otherwise, I am ok with agreeing to disagree.
The biggest problem with your post is you didn't even discuss his main points
It's irrelevant. Each position has pros and cons. You can advocate for a position by emphasizing its pros or advocate against a position by emphasizing its cons. Since every outcome depends on confluence of multiple events (some of which have yet to occur or not occur in the future), trying to discuss semantics of whether bitcoin is "money" or only tangentially relevant to whether events will line up to make it money. Full disclosure: I do not, nor have I ever owned any bitcoins.
Investment doesn't always take the form of putting money in liquid instruments. It could often mean exchanging money (in one form or another) for something which gives control over something which may have value in the future. Jim Rogers (a fairly famous investor) claims that he even invests in North Korea (just in case they do take the right path) by investing in their rare stamps. Not all investment is investment in "business" (ie, human activity which creates life-enabling products).
The value doesn't change, how much you can buy with it however, does change.
How much you can exchange it for is what determines its value. The number written on it is its notional value (aka face value).
The main premise in Judo is to use opponent's strength against them. Forbes knows he sounds snooty. Which is why he takes on a position contrary to the one he actually wants to advocate. Let's say he loaded up on Bitcoins and he wants them to go up. His choices are (1) stay silent; (2) promote it; (3) oppose it. Staying silent obviously will not help him cause. Promoting it will not help his cause because the kinds of people who would take him at his word are not the kinds of people to seek out an alternative currency (he is all about orthodoxy). But he can use the fact that anyone seeking to oppose orthodoxy would do the opposite of what he'd recommend (this is Judo). Oh, and if he really didn't think much of Bitcoin, he would simply not comment.
But the vast, vast majority of the Chinese workforce are not at all well educated. That's why they're cheap. They work in sweatshops, making shiploads of cheap Chinese crap to sell both to China and to the rest of the world.
Education is cheap. All of modern technology was created by people who had no access to technology, but had the education and the erudition on top of it. The primary school education is NOT tiered in China. There are smart Chinese who rise above their peers, but they rise from the same education level as their peers. Being well-educated does not preclude one from working in a sweatshop. An average Chinese peasant has gone though the same schooling as an average Chinese city dweller. In fact, they have an occasional problem of producing more technical university graduates than the economy can accommodate. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/business/as-graduates-rise-in-china-office-jobs-fail-to-keep-up.html
Compare that with the well-known Japanese obsession for perfectionism, for doing things right. I consider that attention to quality an important part, maybe the most important part, of one's work ethic.
I would consider that a difference in business styles rather than in work-ethic. I would think that a merchant who keeps his shop open 10 hours a day, 7 days a week has a high work ethic even if the shop sells crap. So I guess I would fundamentally disagree. Near-ocd attention to quality is not a component of work-ethic. There may be an overlap between those with high work ethic and those who are committed to quality work. But neither is a prerequisite of the other.
Ok, now imagine supporting that code base and not being allowed to change anything significantly without lawyers getting involved. Still wanna write code? Because that's essentially movies have become.
Yes, they do have a well-educated high-work-ethic workforce. You are confusing Chinese with Indians. Indians have a very tiered society (and, by extension, education). Most Chinese go through the same education system. The Chinese who come to this country have very decent level of technical education. The same is true of the ones who don't come here. They ARE cheaper -- there is no question about that. But they are also fairly well-educated. Not sure why you would question their work ethic. Chinese culture is not known (to the best of my knowledge) with advocating leisure or idleness. I could be wrong and would welcome any link you might have that would educate me as to why I am wrong.
It's called a "resume". Just like a any service provider, I only get paid if I find ways to make myself useful. That's as true of employees as it is of companies providing useful goods and services. Unions are there to counter that trend. By definition, that means they are there to get people pay for being useless.
please hand in your healthcare
Sure. In fact, I would LOVE to have my salary increased by the amount spent on my health insurance. I am certain that, even if I were to get a high-cost disease (like cancer), I would still come out ahead during my lifetime.
pension plan
The same one which will bankrupt the company and will leave me without the plan and the future employees without a job? I guess I'll have to. But, hey, at least, if I spend that money investing (conservatively), I'll still come out ahead vs union reducing the job opportunities and promoting mediocrity in the work place.
lunch break
Just like free coffee, that's there to improve productivity, so any good management would want to institute that... it's just more profitable to have than not to have it. Unions' taking credit for it are plainly lying (but we already know that you unions are lying when they speak).
40-hour work week
No such thing.
compensation for crippling workplace injuries
Tort suits are much more effective at stopping these than unions are.
right to work in a properly ventilated and lighted building
I prefer less light. But thanks. Proper ventilation? Yeah, that's going to be important when the technology makes it cheaper to have healthy workers than the money spent on ventilation. I am sure unions will take the credit for improvement's in technology? Despite resisting them all the way?
Don't worry, you'll still get an extra three hours off on Sundays, to attend the mandatory chapel service and hear how God wants you to be a proper obedient worker.
Hmm. Funny, how you are arguing against a lifestyle which existed 100 years ago... and not against a life style which exists in non-union countries today. The conditions when unions provided more benefit than harm were a historical anomaly. That time is gone. And as soon as it disappeared, the unions became a source of harm for the workers. That's why most of the work force is not unionized.
You are misinforming them. If it's a C++ job that wants to pay 50-60k, you should let them know it's a C job. Otherwise, they might stick some unfortunate developer in a team which takes pride in learning nothing for 20 years and finding out that arrogance doesn't scale very well.
You know a neat thing about unions?
Nothing. There is absolutely nothing neat about them. They are made of scum. Anyone who is a member of a union and doesn't want that to change is scum.
They're made of the people in them.
No. They are not. Not even close. As every organization which exists for the sole purpose of fighting for power, it is guided by the desires of the least common denominator of its members. Only the power hungry will rise to its top because the rest will be outmaneuvered. So you are presented with a an organization which exists for the sole purpose of obtaining more power for itself and guided by power-hungry elite. I'll take my chances with "management" before the union any day. At least for management power is only one of many priorities. For unions, it's not.
150k doesn't put in top developer bracket.
Yeah, but if our code gets as bad as our movies (and yes, I am blaming the bad movies and awful IP laws on SAG), wouldn't we rather do something other than code? Who'd want the product of their life to be something as embarrassing as a Hollywood movie?
Well, they could use art to advocate for social changes that are catastrophic. Or think smaller... they could advocate for a scientific view-point to be accepted without further examination.... thereby short-circuiting the scientific method and causing great damage not only the science they pollute but also to the general-population view on how science is done.
Why would you even bother arguing with someone who is trying to advocate for moral relativism by appealing to theory or relativity? This is one of the oldest ways of identifying a wannabe.
every hipster's head just exploded
I don't think I'd have a problem with robots giving me tickets as long as it were robots who'd then have to come and arrest me in case I don't pay the said tickets. Or it were robots that would pull me over for driving with tickets on my record. But if it is other human being who now take orders from computers based on decisions made by computers, it's over. As long as technology is used to observe, we are civilized. But the moment technology becomes a substitute for judgement (a uniquely human faculty), we lose the ability to face our accusers. It is IMPOSSIBLE (provably so... mathematically provably) to predict all future scenarios. Almost by definition, if it is the technology that makes the decisions, then the burden of proof is shifted to the accused... the moment we lose our responsibility for judgement, as humans, is the moment we lose civilization.
It's not even remotely true, but hey it has nothing to do with the argument at hand, so I will not bother to debunk it. Given the level of sadistic vitriol in your statement, you already heard the rational arguments which prove you wrong, but you want to cherry pick facts which make it seem like you are right and spew them, anyway. Have at it.
Reagan's interest in "High Tech" was mostly limited to military applications
You are remembering things through the delusional lens of the modern left. Having lived in the Soviet Union in the 80's, I actually remember what Reagan talked about when describing his America. VCRs were actually one of the novelties he mentioned by name as the "modern day" American technological miracle. And he was right. Ability to view a movie at will with essentially no equipment in addition to the TV was a huge leap forward in technology. HUGE. But, judging from your other comments, you are of the ilk that doesn't comprehend the advantage of a society which produces what people want over the society which produces what smart benevolent few figure out that the people need.
He killed financial support for solar and other alternative energy technologies
Well, technically FDR killed it by creating the huge national subsidy to the car companies in the form of interstate highway system. But any subsidies to "alternative" energy development at the time of Reagan would have been as dumb as they are today... maybe a LITTLE less dumb. Simply put, the opposite of "cost effective" is "wasteful." Yes, I know of the logic behind the singularity argument. No, it doesn't change the argument in this particular case.
America has fallen behind Asia and even Europe
That's just idiotic. But ok, this argument is not even worth having. Go ahead.. spew a few cherry picked statistics, pat yourself on the back that your backed your statement with "facts" and that conservative hate "facts." And move on. This type of stupidity is as fun to debunk as arguing with other religious nuts (ie, not at all).