Features are more important than stability to many people. Rebooting is annoying, but not being able to do certain things is unacceptable.
I know more people who say they have never used most of the features in MS Office..nor even know what they are...than comment about how feature rich MS Office is.
MS Office (and other heavily integrated packages) tries to be all things to all people. Most uses have a very small subset of required featured that they use regularly, imho.
Actually, I agree that VB *CAN* be used in very expert ways to accomplish useful tasks. As far as I am concerned, VB is a useful tool for generating small utilities very fast; you know, things that don't require a lot of horsepower (but there are ways to optimize VB to some good performance in some algorithms).
My main issue with the point made in this article is that it seemed *assumed* that because this kid was fairly proficient in VB, that de facto made him an expert programmer. You can be nearly low-level illiterate and still generate some useful stuff with VB. Truthfully, that is what I think of these particular kids from the tone of the article (and the fact that they don't FIND the vulnerabilities and engineer an exploit, they simply apply what is published in security bulletins).
I'd be willing to bet that if you ask them to write a driver for a custom one-off process control board, their eyes would glass over. There are probably virus writers out there who *ARE* expert programmers, even at the low level, but they were not the ones represented in this article. All of them were relatively young, and with the exception of one guy who was an unemployed dude with a CS degree, had no substantial credentials.
I got the impression the author of the article was trying to show these kids as geniuses or computer wiz kids....when you don't have to be a wiz to throw together some VB that opens a socket and listens on a port (for example).
For the sheer intellectual challenge, Philet0ast3r replied, the fun of producing something ''really cool.'' For the top worm writers, the goal is to make something that's brand-new, never seen before. Replicating an existing virus is ''lame,'' the worst of all possible insults.
and
Philet0ast3r said he isn't interested in producing a network worm, but he said it wouldn't be hard if he wanted to do it. He would scour the Web sites where computer-security professionals report any new software vulnerabilities they discover. Often, these security white papers will explain the flaw in such detail that they practically provide a road map on how to write a worm that exploits it. ''Then I would use it,'' he concluded. ''It's that simple.''
So these *expert* programmers (of Visual Basic) read of security vulnerabilities that describe the exploit, then code it, and call *that* new and creative.
This NYT article completely overrated the skill of these 'worms.'
I have not observed it thousands of times though, it could be an exception.
Just out of curiosity, you dont live in a socialistic country, do you?
Unfortunately, I don't think your observation IS an exception...I have observed it myself in previous jobs. I am just stating that I think that particular practice is shortsighted and, well, dumb, and chose to not operate my business on that model.
Good point. My experience was just the opposite! Had a water pump leak around shaft bearing, emptied the radiator. Sensor stayed low. Caught the problem only cuz I happened to see coolant dripping.
That's not really a relevant analogy. Something more analogous would be 'my car won't explode if I don't put any coolant in the radiator'. Your car will show the temperature steadily increasing and it may well let you get it hot enough to start a fire or seize the engine. A Pentium engine OTOH would turn itself off after the temperature threshold reached a certain point, thereby saving itself.
Actually, with no coolant in the radiator, the temp gauge WON'T move, since the sensor reads the temperature of the coolant. Your analogy is more like saying the thermal protection, whether on-chip or on-mainboard, didn't work. In either case, the chip's fried.
he might rather pick the one with exactly the right qualifications
Sorry, but that is my point. "Exactly the right qualifications" for me in my hiring practice tends to equal "most qualified."
Granted, this is subjectively defined. In general, I would see programming experience on a variety of project scopes and fluency in numerous programming languages 'more qualified' than a skill set that might be cheaper (fluency only in the language I need for this project).
I guess I am saying I don't think there is such a thing as 'overqualified.' Why punish excellence? The more qualified the better. That's just me, and the way I run my company.
We (my company, I dont personally recruit people) are not looking for the most brilliant and ambitious people out there. We employ those who have exactly the right level of skills. Sounds strange, but when the times changes, if you have employed over-qualified people they will demand higher salaries, more interesting duties, and maybe they will leave nevertheless. Being overqualified is as bad as being underqualified.
I cannot speak for your company or any other than my own, but I think this 'overqualified is as bad as underqualified' notion is crap. And very shortsited.
When I look to hire someone for a particular project, I care about two things: can they get the job done on my timetable and will they do it for the money/benefits I am willing to pay.
An overqualified person MIGHT be more likely to leave for something 'better,' but so what? What are you out of? For the time he was there, he will have brought tremendous skills to your mission, and that is hard to put a pricetag on.
What are some of the things he brings? Well, his training time to get productive on your project is likely to be shorter, he might just see things that steer the project in a BETTER direction or he might decide he likes the work enough to stay around a while.
Experience is like gold, and it can only benefit the project. I would NEVER turn down someone on the premise of being overqualified *IF* they are willing to work for my offered pay.
1. While the profit motive may be recognized by the Supreme Court as "the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors" (Eldred v. Ashcroft), it is not the only one. The very existance of Open Source software demonstrates that motives other than profit can produce a public benefit and proliferation of knowledge.
We can add that one can profit in different ways, too. I don't have to make money on the sale of a particular piece of software, but I can make money by participating in an Open Source project.
Specifically, if I have contributed to a large (and well known) OSS project, then presumably my skills have been seen and evaluated (implicitly). If I am competing for a contract against other developers, I can point to that code, while they may only be able to say 'I developed proprietary code at [software house].'
In other words, one benefit I see about participating in OSS is that your work is constantly under review by a LOT of would-be competitors...this keeps us honest and means we are all constantly learning. I will profit in the long run from being a better programmer involved in bigger projects than I would get to participate in alone.
The professionalism factor may not have a specific price tag, but I have to believe that successful businessmen and/or politicians don't get where they are by seeing ONLY dollar amounts (though it sure seems that way sometimes).
I am a small business owner, and one of our activities is development (on specific projects). I see OSS a benefit to me and my business, not a threat. And that's what I said in my letter to one of my State Senators.
In looking at the two programs outlined, I noticed that they somewhat focus on training for specific products (VC.NET, 2003 Server, Cisco Routers, etc.) rather than underlying theory and principles.
As the owner of a small business who sometimes looks to hire developers for specific projects, I would probably not hire someone coming from this type of curriculum. In contrast, a programmer with education in principles could likely learn VC, gcc, VectorC or whatever compiler tool best suits the project. To this end, I would not put on my job search documents "experienced in VC.NET" but rather "experience programming C++."
Can you name one single article published in a refereed scientific journal written by Sagan, or that directly quotes Sagan's work as a scientist (not opinion writer)?
Writing your thought and ideas is far from real science, which requires your thoughts and ideas to stand up to peer review. Sagan conveniently by-passed that step, yet is considered 'a great scientist.'
Carl Sagan was an idiot. There has not been one single idea the man wrote about that has been shown to be remotely factual in true, scientific testing.
He fantasized science fiction, and somehow convince millions it was scientific fact.
Slashdot Mirror
You have obviously never tried to send a bug report or such to MS.
Features are more important than stability to many people. Rebooting is annoying, but not being able to do certain things is unacceptable.
I know more people who say they have never used most of the features in MS Office..nor even know what they are...than comment about how feature rich MS Office is.
MS Office (and other heavily integrated packages) tries to be all things to all people. Most uses have a very small subset of required featured that they use regularly, imho.
Actually, I agree that VB *CAN* be used in very expert ways to accomplish useful tasks. As far as I am concerned, VB is a useful tool for generating small utilities very fast; you know, things that don't require a lot of horsepower (but there are ways to optimize VB to some good performance in some algorithms).
My main issue with the point made in this article is that it seemed *assumed* that because this kid was fairly proficient in VB, that de facto made him an expert programmer. You can be nearly low-level illiterate and still generate some useful stuff with VB. Truthfully, that is what I think of these particular kids from the tone of the article (and the fact that they don't FIND the vulnerabilities and engineer an exploit, they simply apply what is published in security bulletins).
I'd be willing to bet that if you ask them to write a driver for a custom one-off process control board, their eyes would glass over. There are probably virus writers out there who *ARE* expert programmers, even at the low level, but they were not the ones represented in this article. All of them were relatively young, and with the exception of one guy who was an unemployed dude with a CS degree, had no substantial credentials.
I got the impression the author of the article was trying to show these kids as geniuses or computer wiz kids....when you don't have to be a wiz to throw together some VB that opens a socket and listens on a port (for example).
For the sheer intellectual challenge, Philet0ast3r replied, the fun of producing something ''really cool.'' For the top worm writers, the goal is to make something that's brand-new, never seen before. Replicating an existing virus is ''lame,'' the worst of all possible insults.
and
Philet0ast3r said he isn't interested in producing a network worm, but he said it wouldn't be hard if he wanted to do it. He would scour the Web sites where computer-security professionals report any new software vulnerabilities they discover. Often, these security white papers will explain the flaw in such detail that they practically provide a road map on how to write a worm that exploits it. ''Then I would use it,'' he concluded. ''It's that simple.''
So these *expert* programmers (of Visual Basic) read of security vulnerabilities that describe the exploit, then code it, and call *that* new and creative.
This NYT article completely overrated the skill of these 'worms.'
I have not observed it thousands of times though, it could be an exception. Just out of curiosity, you dont live in a socialistic country, do you?
Unfortunately, I don't think your observation IS an exception...I have observed it myself in previous jobs. I am just stating that I think that particular practice is shortsighted and, well, dumb, and chose to not operate my business on that model.
I live in the US...socialistic? Moreso every day.
Experience counts in this one. :)
Good point. My experience was just the opposite! Had a water pump leak around shaft bearing, emptied the radiator. Sensor stayed low. Caught the problem only cuz I happened to see coolant dripping.
That's not really a relevant analogy. Something more analogous would be 'my car won't explode if I don't put any coolant in the radiator'. Your car will show the temperature steadily increasing and it may well let you get it hot enough to start a fire or seize the engine. A Pentium engine OTOH would turn itself off after the temperature threshold reached a certain point, thereby saving itself.
Actually, with no coolant in the radiator, the temp gauge WON'T move, since the sensor reads the temperature of the coolant. Your analogy is more like saying the thermal protection, whether on-chip or on-mainboard, didn't work. In either case, the chip's fried.
he might rather pick the one with exactly the right qualifications
Sorry, but that is my point. "Exactly the right qualifications" for me in my hiring practice tends to equal "most qualified."
Granted, this is subjectively defined. In general, I would see programming experience on a variety of project scopes and fluency in numerous programming languages 'more qualified' than a skill set that might be cheaper (fluency only in the language I need for this project).
I guess I am saying I don't think there is such a thing as 'overqualified.' Why punish excellence? The more qualified the better. That's just me, and the way I run my company.
We (my company, I dont personally recruit people) are not looking for the most brilliant and ambitious people out there. We employ those who have exactly the right level of skills. Sounds strange, but when the times changes, if you have employed over-qualified people they will demand higher salaries, more interesting duties, and maybe they will leave nevertheless. Being overqualified is as bad as being underqualified.
I cannot speak for your company or any other than my own, but I think this 'overqualified is as bad as underqualified' notion is crap. And very shortsited.
When I look to hire someone for a particular project, I care about two things: can they get the job done on my timetable and will they do it for the money/benefits I am willing to pay.
An overqualified person MIGHT be more likely to leave for something 'better,' but so what? What are you out of? For the time he was there, he will have brought tremendous skills to your mission, and that is hard to put a pricetag on.
What are some of the things he brings? Well, his training time to get productive on your project is likely to be shorter, he might just see things that steer the project in a BETTER direction or he might decide he likes the work enough to stay around a while.
Experience is like gold, and it can only benefit the project. I would NEVER turn down someone on the premise of being overqualified *IF* they are willing to work for my offered pay.
1. While the profit motive may be recognized by the Supreme Court as "the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors" (Eldred v. Ashcroft), it is not the only one. The very existance of Open Source software demonstrates that motives other than profit can produce a public benefit and proliferation of knowledge.
We can add that one can profit in different ways, too. I don't have to make money on the sale of a particular piece of software, but I can make money by participating in an Open Source project.
Specifically, if I have contributed to a large (and well known) OSS project, then presumably my skills have been seen and evaluated (implicitly). If I am competing for a contract against other developers, I can point to that code, while they may only be able to say 'I developed proprietary code at [software house].'
In other words, one benefit I see about participating in OSS is that your work is constantly under review by a LOT of would-be competitors...this keeps us honest and means we are all constantly learning. I will profit in the long run from being a better programmer involved in bigger projects than I would get to participate in alone.
The professionalism factor may not have a specific price tag, but I have to believe that successful businessmen and/or politicians don't get where they are by seeing ONLY dollar amounts (though it sure seems that way sometimes).
I am a small business owner, and one of our activities is development (on specific projects). I see OSS a benefit to me and my business, not a threat. And that's what I said in my letter to one of my State Senators.
No Linux driver ...
In looking at the two programs outlined, I noticed that they somewhat focus on training for specific products (VC .NET, 2003 Server, Cisco Routers, etc.) rather than underlying theory and principles.
.NET" but rather "experience programming C++."
As the owner of a small business who sometimes looks to hire developers for specific projects, I would probably not hire someone coming from this type of curriculum. In contrast, a programmer with education in principles could likely learn VC, gcc, VectorC or whatever compiler tool best suits the project. To this end, I would not put on my job search documents "experienced in VC
Okay, let me rephrase ...
Can you name one single article published in a refereed scientific journal written by Sagan, or that directly quotes Sagan's work as a scientist (not opinion writer)?
Writing your thought and ideas is far from real science, which requires your thoughts and ideas to stand up to peer review. Sagan conveniently by-passed that step, yet is considered 'a great scientist.'
Regards....
Carl Sagan was an idiot. There has not been one single idea the man wrote about that has been shown to be remotely factual in true, scientific testing.
He fantasized science fiction, and somehow convince millions it was scientific fact.