Achieving this goal makes it more apparent that the barriers are not as high as ones thinking makes them.
Before this prize is won, conventional wisdom was ( is ) that it takes Governmental levels of investment of money, time, etc, etc.. After, the psychological barriers will be lower. It will be "thinkable", where before it was not.
*That* is where this prize is important. That and getting the ball rolling, however weakly.
As a practicing programmer, I find the statement that "our work ethic has gone to ". I and many others in various teams that I have been part of have worked a few billion lifetimes worth of deathmarches to try to comply with the need of the company we were working for to release a product. Usually for no additional pay. This is common, and I cannot see how going as far over and above for a company qualifies us as having a poor work ethic. And as to quality, there was no-one on the team that was happy about the quality of the work done under those cercumstances. We all wanted to have better, and we all did what we could to keep it as high as we could. Pressur from management is all that stood in our way. Yes, we all know about the stereotypical American worker typified in the movies. There is some truth to that, but that does not describe the huge majority of the programmers I have run into in the 10+ years I have been doing this.
To the point of built in obsolence, there is an issue there, and I am not sure who's foot you are laying it at. Personally, I would lay it at the foot of corporate profit seeking. The American worker, by and large, has little or no say over how corporate America designs and produces and markets the products they are sold. In the cases where they have some small input, it is just that, small, divided, and often, I think, ignored. I am reminded of an old tale my Uncle told me. He worked in the automotive industry, and he told me a story ( I dont know how true, but I have believed it... ) about how One Large Automotive company, long time ago, fired the design team that handled front end parts. Why? They were not wearing out soon enough to be profitable in replacement part sales. They hired away the design team from another Large Automotive firm in order to get the job done "properly".
On the issue of outsourcing being about money or quality, it is about money. There are many many good programmers in other countries. But there are many many good programmers here, also. I would expect that the average number of years spent in "the trade" would be higher here ( which I would expect to correlate to higher quality code ). All the business rags talk about the savings from outsourcing, not about the quality of work. The pressure brought by wall street, that is often used to justify this practice, is all about the bottom line, and the profitability to investors, not about quality. If those companies were truly interested in quality, they why didnt they allow us the time to do things correctly? ( Money, costs more to do a quality job, as it takes more time ( and therefore wages ) ).
Here is some irony for you... Programmers were, by and large, not allowed to take advantage of the internet to work from home ( telecommute ) because of the "loss of oversight and control" ( hours worked, etc, etc ). But now, for the promise of savings, they are allowing whole projects to be done overseas where they have even less oversight and control. Sounds like hypocracy to me.
I would say I agree that satisfaction, pride and productivity ought to be important to all. I would ask why are the CEO's and other so called leaders of corporations are leading off in the other direction.
I would have to check, but my recollection was that the "other stuff" is covered by that same warranty. Course, that was all back in the day, and may have changed. There is little profit in bicycle sales ( from what I understand ).
You have a point, this is all off-topic to the point of "software has little or no warranty".
Speaking as a developer, I can understand the reluctance to offer warranties. With a good crew of developers, it is still altogether too easy to miss something. And software is complex, usually. The testing of software is also difficult. The QA people try ( usually ) to do a good job of figuring out all the possible testing scenarios, but some are missed.
Ask an engineering firm to design and build a bridge. They will know the location, and all the particulars about how that bridges as built location that they can. They will be able to estimate the number of items and the weights of the items that are to transit the bridge. Software, on the other hand, has to be designed to handle lots more variables. You would never expect, for example, with the bridge, to be able to move it to a new place with different soil density, a different length, change the amount and kind and frequency of load. Recall back a while ago, when bridge building was subject to similar problems. Software will get there, I think, but it will take a while, some breakthoughs need to be made, and some pain will be felt as we move to that level.
Bicycles, last I worked with them ( 10 years gone... ), ( from bicycle shops, not the department store "garage end finders" ) have lifetime warranties on the frame and fork, and I believe ( memory can be *so* defective ) on the parts.
Yes, there are many many that are graduating that think they can make tons of money, and that is all they care about. There are a number that love it.
Put it this way, why do so many people become doctors, lawyers and business people? Because, for the most part of the money. Are they *all* worthless because of the many?
Someone agreed with me! Argghhh! What will I do now?
Seriously, thanks.
Here is an idea.... Companies pay moderate taxes, and can offset some of that thru US based payroll.
I would also remove campaign contributions from corporations entirely. Campaign contributions from individuals would be pooled and the candidates would be able to draw from it equally. They would not be allowed to use their own money ( excepting it goes into the general fund ). Talking about anything other than issues would be followed by an immediate dismissal from the race, and only the candidates would be allowed to advertise in the race. A few random thoughts.
An under-the-table job as a waiter would be against the values that I hold as a Christian. I agree that the current setup is bad for this case, but it is the current setup. Proposals to fix this are great, but hardly admissible until they are the law.
A non-disclosure statement does not stop a person from producing something that was your idea. It makes it legally actionable, assuming you can prove they stole it. Your ability in the "meagerly employeed" category to prosecute a corporation with money will be proven to be essentially non-existant, unless you assign the bulk of your recovery to the lawyers handling the issue for you.
I am a developer, I have the tools installed on my machine. I have considered many ideas in terms of application development. Perhaps I am deficient, but I have not found an idea that I have considered worth the time to invest in so far, considering time to produce, ease of marketing, sales effort, etc, etc.
Question to you: you "have made commercial-level software from your apartment". Did it make you any income? How did that turn out for you? When you take the income, divide by the effort ( time, for instance ), was it worth it, from the standpoint of keeping a roof overhead, and food in the fridge?
I agree that employees should not feel like a job is an entitlement.
But what about the companies entitlements?
Little to no taxes on profits?
The safety and security of operating here, protected by our laws, our military, our police. Access to world class technology and workers. Easy to forget them, once the company is built to the point were they can afford to offshore it all.
How about if the workers that built up the company get to keep their jobs? In the vast majority of cases, the employers are not without profits. The employer wants to make more.
The excessive access they have to law-makers.
I dont think corporations are entitled to those things, nor many other benefits they have from operating in the USA. But they sure have them.
I think companies that chose to operate here in the US owe the people that pay taxes something. And that something is more than paying shareholders. Not every American citizen is a shareholder, and paying the shareholder is a direct duty owed from the investment by the shareholder.
Lesson from history. Look into capital / labor relationships though the years. There was a period where capital had the upper hand.
It *is* in the long term enlightened self interest of markets to self regulate. They cant or wont do it. The lure of money is too high. They need oversight and regulation. Government seems an appropriate agency for this oversight.
NYSE: Scandal involving the former head of the NYSE relating to pay amounts. He got the axe over this. If he were as you imply above, he never would have asked so much at that time.
Accounting Principals: WorldCom, Enron. How many companies have had to restate earnings because they pushed more than was supportable into the current period to satisfy the urge to high profits? How about the market timing illegalities brought to us and reported widely about the big mutual fund companies?
Lots of people *do* invest in companies despite ( or because? ) of these corruptions ( note, it is not *completely* corrupt ). They would continue to do so even if things got worse, as long as they did not see these corruptions as being detrimental to their local profitablity.
Of course and business owner would tell me those things. These ideas suit them to a tea. This kinda proves my point. Without taxes, without the services that those taxes provide ( police, courts, military, etc, etc ), where would those business' be? But businesses, by and large, would allow taxes and regulations to decline, to thier own long term detriment, from what I see. The attitude with this, and with the parent "offshoring" concept is that "someone else will pay for this, I dont want to" forgetting that everyone else thinks the same.
Sounds like they have the charter to go after this for me...
I dont want a nanny-state. Niether for me, nor for corporations.
Question: How will competition help schools? Notice I used the plural. Yes, competition will help *a* school, but only by concentrating the best students with the most money. They will be well served. What about the rest?
Being unemployeed. You make it sound like it is easy. Have you tried it? Inventing something in my garage? First, based on what idea? If I had the idea, I would be out working on it, employeed or not. Second, what can I invent that takes no money, or very little ( worked at McD's lately? probably not worth what it will do to your unemployment benefits ( that you have already paid for, so dont go there.... ) )? Remember, I am unemployeed, or not making much. Most of us need to eat. Some of us even have families. Can I afford to patent this invention? Probably not. So, first well heeled competitor that sees it is copying it. Can I market it? Again probably not very effectively, and the first company that I try to talk to about producing this miracle for me will take most of the profits, since I am not bargaining from a position of strength ( If I dont take what they offer, what stops them from simply producing it without me... I kinda have to show them everything to convince them it is do-able. ).
Why dont you swim to Hawaii from the mainland US? It's just swimming. The water is lovely.
Event A happened before event B. You are correct to say that from that we dont know that A caused B. However, to claim the opposite and say that A did not cause B is equally in error. You dont know.
I would disagree about government intervention and regulation. If there were no regulations, the 401k's, stock options and other perks would never have been shared with ordinary employees. SEC regulations on insider trading and other trading practices are abused *with* the laws in place. How bad would things be without them? And where would the wealth of the nation be? The concentration into the hands of the wealthy would be even greater.
Automatic intervention into everything is probably not good, but I dont think that automatically ignoring everything is good either. The values of personal liberty and distrust of governmental action should be well regarded in deliberating these points. But remember that corporations are just as good at removing these, and Unions or Governments are really about the only effective ( read powerfull enough ) entities to counter this.
Collect the facts you have, make darned sure they are all 100%, hand them to SpamCop. They use it in this suit to disprove the "they just dont remember" statement ( 1 counterexample disproves a claim... ). Be ready to testify.
No, see, that is part of the magic. When you press the button for more than one second, you *are in* Soviet Russia, then the radio tunes you, then you are back where you started ( which may or may not be Soviet Russia ).
We produce the documents, which are then ignored by the business person.
Those business persons dont want to talk to you as a development manager about how to specify the project, they want you to just go produce the darned thing, and get it right the first time. And dont bug him / her / it or his / her's / it's staff.
I dont know how many times business has told me something like "that only happens on rare occasions". Like I dont have to account for it. Never mind if I dont, that business person will be first in my face about how I could overlook something so important.
No, offshoring is about the money. The business can have all the definition they want. The specs are usually, as I understand it, not produced offshore.
It is not the easy money. As a programmer who was around before the "bubble", there were many many undisciplined shops before, during and after, at least from where I sit.
The problem is that the business and sales types that run these companies, by and large, dont understand software development, and dont want to understand it. Further, they do not listen to the development managers that they hire, and often overrule them, using their own misunderstanding to guide them.
Will the childish attitude of about 50% of the posts on these subjects ever decrease
Probably not, and I agree that that is bad.
When is this "M$ is the bad guy RAA!!" paradigm going to vanish? It's certainly not useful to stereotype everything they do as bad, considering they're so successful (funny how often people utterly ignore that).
As soon as MS abandons the bulk of the bad business habits that have earned it the bad reputation that it has.
I believe many people have to take a step back, and try to be more humble, rational individuals.
Very very true, on both sides of the fence. I would love to see MS become a more humble, rational company, for instance. More concerned with what is right and legal and good for the whole community, less concerned with what it can afford to get away with. I would love to see no "Microsoft is automatically bad" comments, but reasoned discourse.
Start realizing that Microsoft can be your best friend if they're given enough time.
Friendship is a two way street.
They have some of the most skilled software designers/engineers around, so they have HUGE HUGE potential
True, but no more or less than anyone else around.
Slashdot Mirror
Achieving this goal makes it more apparent that the barriers are not as high as ones thinking makes them.
Before this prize is won, conventional wisdom was ( is ) that it takes Governmental levels of investment of money, time, etc, etc.. After, the psychological barriers will be lower. It will be "thinkable", where before it was not.
*That* is where this prize is important. That and getting the ball rolling, however weakly.
Would that make it all OK?
So, now, can I go rob a 7/11, donate the proceeds ( see how I hide robbery in nice business terms... ) to charity? No police coming for me?
As a practicing programmer, I find the statement that "our work ethic has gone to ". I and many others in various teams that I have been part of have worked a few billion lifetimes worth of deathmarches to try to comply with the need of the company we were working for to release a product. Usually for no additional pay. This is common, and I cannot see how going as far over and above for a company qualifies us as having a poor work ethic. And as to quality, there was no-one on the team that was happy about the quality of the work done under those cercumstances. We all wanted to have better, and we all did what we could to keep it as high as we could. Pressur from management is all that stood in our way. Yes, we all know about the stereotypical American worker typified in the movies. There is some truth to that, but that does not describe the huge majority of the programmers I have run into in the 10+ years I have been doing this.
To the point of built in obsolence, there is an issue there, and I am not sure who's foot you are laying it at. Personally, I would lay it at the foot of corporate profit seeking. The American worker, by and large, has little or no say over how corporate America designs and produces and markets the products they are sold. In the cases where they have some small input, it is just that, small, divided, and often, I think, ignored. I am reminded of an old tale my Uncle told me. He worked in the automotive industry, and he told me a story ( I dont know how true, but I have believed it... ) about how One Large Automotive company, long time ago, fired the design team that handled front end parts. Why? They were not wearing out soon enough to be profitable in replacement part sales. They hired away the design team from another Large Automotive firm in order to get the job done "properly".
On the issue of outsourcing being about money or quality, it is about money. There are many many good programmers in other countries. But there are many many good programmers here, also. I would expect that the average number of years spent in "the trade" would be higher here ( which I would expect to correlate to higher quality code ). All the business rags talk about the savings from outsourcing, not about the quality of work. The pressure brought by wall street, that is often used to justify this practice, is all about the bottom line, and the profitability to investors, not about quality. If those companies were truly interested in quality, they why didnt they allow us the time to do things correctly? ( Money, costs more to do a quality job, as it takes more time ( and therefore wages ) ).
Here is some irony for you... Programmers were, by and large, not allowed to take advantage of the internet to work from home ( telecommute ) because of the "loss of oversight and control" ( hours worked, etc, etc ). But now, for the promise of savings, they are allowing whole projects to be done overseas where they have even less oversight and control. Sounds like hypocracy to me.
I would say I agree that satisfaction, pride and productivity ought to be important to all. I would ask why are the CEO's and other so called leaders of corporations are leading off in the other direction.
Is what most CEO's will do. As long as it is not A.
OK.
I would have to check, but my recollection was that the "other stuff" is covered by that same warranty. Course, that was all back in the day, and may have changed. There is little profit in bicycle sales ( from what I understand ).
You have a point, this is all off-topic to the point of "software has little or no warranty".
Speaking as a developer, I can understand the reluctance to offer warranties. With a good crew of developers, it is still altogether too easy to miss something. And software is complex, usually. The testing of software is also difficult. The QA people try ( usually ) to do a good job of figuring out all the possible testing scenarios, but some are missed.
Ask an engineering firm to design and build a bridge. They will know the location, and all the particulars about how that bridges as built location that they can. They will be able to estimate the number of items and the weights of the items that are to transit the bridge. Software, on the other hand, has to be designed to handle lots more variables. You would never expect, for example, with the bridge, to be able to move it to a new place with different soil density, a different length, change the amount and kind and frequency of load. Recall back a while ago, when bridge building was subject to similar problems. Software will get there, I think, but it will take a while, some breakthoughs need to be made, and some pain will be felt as we move to that level.
Bicycles, last I worked with them ( 10 years gone... ), ( from bicycle shops, not the department store "garage end finders" ) have lifetime warranties on the frame and fork, and I believe ( memory can be *so* defective ) on the parts.
If it is so irrelevant, why did you read it?
Just as there are bright students in India, China, Russia, and in many other places in the world, there *are* bright students here in the US.
students graduating.
Yes, there are many many that are graduating that think they can make tons of money, and that is all they care about. There are a number that love it.
Put it this way, why do so many people become doctors, lawyers and business people? Because, for the most part of the money. Are they *all* worthless because of the many?
Nothing here, move along.
Oh no!
Someone agreed with me! Argghhh! What will I do now?
Seriously, thanks.
Here is an idea.... Companies pay moderate taxes, and can offset some of that thru US based payroll.
I would also remove campaign contributions from corporations entirely. Campaign contributions from individuals would be pooled and the candidates would be able to draw from it equally. They would not be allowed to use their own money ( excepting it goes into the general fund ). Talking about anything other than issues would be followed by an immediate dismissal from the race, and only the candidates would be allowed to advertise in the race. A few random thoughts.
An under-the-table job as a waiter would be against the values that I hold as a Christian. I agree that the current setup is bad for this case, but it is the current setup. Proposals to fix this are great, but hardly admissible until they are the law.
A non-disclosure statement does not stop a person from producing something that was your idea. It makes it legally actionable, assuming you can prove they stole it. Your ability in the "meagerly employeed" category to prosecute a corporation with money will be proven to be essentially non-existant, unless you assign the bulk of your recovery to the lawyers handling the issue for you.
I am a developer, I have the tools installed on my machine. I have considered many ideas in terms of application development. Perhaps I am deficient, but I have not found an idea that I have considered worth the time to invest in so far, considering time to produce, ease of marketing, sales effort, etc, etc.
Question to you: you "have made commercial-level software from your apartment". Did it make you any income? How did that turn out for you? When you take the income, divide by the effort ( time, for instance ), was it worth it, from the standpoint of keeping a roof overhead, and food in the fridge?
I agree that employees should not feel like a job is an entitlement.
But what about the companies entitlements?
Little to no taxes on profits?
The safety and security of operating here, protected by our laws, our military, our police. Access to world class technology and workers. Easy to forget them, once the company is built to the point were they can afford to offshore it all.
How about if the workers that built up the company get to keep their jobs? In the vast majority of cases, the employers are not without profits. The employer wants to make more.
The excessive access they have to law-makers.
I dont think corporations are entitled to those things, nor many other benefits they have from operating in the USA. But they sure have them.
I think companies that chose to operate here in the US owe the people that pay taxes something. And that something is more than paying shareholders. Not every American citizen is a shareholder, and paying the shareholder is a direct duty owed from the investment by the shareholder.
Lesson from history. Look into capital / labor relationships though the years. There was a period where capital had the upper hand.
It *is* in the long term enlightened self interest of markets to self regulate. They cant or wont do it. The lure of money is too high. They need oversight and regulation. Government seems an appropriate agency for this oversight.
NYSE: Scandal involving the former head of the NYSE relating to pay amounts. He got the axe over this. If he were as you imply above, he never would have asked so much at that time.
Accounting Principals: WorldCom, Enron. How many companies have had to restate earnings because they pushed more than was supportable into the current period to satisfy the urge to high profits? How about the market timing illegalities brought to us and reported widely about the big mutual fund companies?
Lots of people *do* invest in companies despite ( or because? ) of these corruptions ( note, it is not *completely* corrupt ). They would continue to do so even if things got worse, as long as they did not see these corruptions as being detrimental to their local profitablity.
Of course and business owner would tell me those things. These ideas suit them to a tea. This kinda proves my point. Without taxes, without the services that those taxes provide ( police, courts, military, etc, etc ), where would those business' be? But businesses, by and large, would allow taxes and regulations to decline, to thier own long term detriment, from what I see. The attitude with this, and with the parent "offshoring" concept is that "someone else will pay for this, I dont want to" forgetting that everyone else thinks the same.
Sounds like they have the charter to go after this for me...
I dont want a nanny-state. Niether for me, nor for corporations.
Question: How will competition help schools? Notice I used the plural. Yes, competition will help *a* school, but only by concentrating the best students with the most money. They will be well served. What about the rest?
Being unemployeed. You make it sound like it is easy. Have you tried it? Inventing something in my garage? First, based on what idea? If I had the idea, I would be out working on it, employeed or not. Second, what can I invent that takes no money, or very little ( worked at McD's lately? probably not worth what it will do to your unemployment benefits ( that you have already paid for, so dont go there.... ) )? Remember, I am unemployeed, or not making much. Most of us need to eat. Some of us even have families. Can I afford to patent this invention? Probably not. So, first well heeled competitor that sees it is copying it. Can I market it? Again probably not very effectively, and the first company that I try to talk to about producing this miracle for me will take most of the profits, since I am not bargaining from a position of strength ( If I dont take what they offer, what stops them from simply producing it without me... I kinda have to show them everything to convince them it is do-able. ).
Why dont you swim to Hawaii from the mainland US? It's just swimming. The water is lovely.
Event A happened before event B. You are correct to say that from that we dont know that A caused B. However, to claim the opposite and say that A did not cause B is equally in error. You dont know.
I would disagree about government intervention and regulation. If there were no regulations, the 401k's, stock options and other perks would never have been shared with ordinary employees. SEC regulations on insider trading and other trading practices are abused *with* the laws in place. How bad would things be without them? And where would the wealth of the nation be? The concentration into the hands of the wealthy would be even greater.
Automatic intervention into everything is probably not good, but I dont think that automatically ignoring everything is good either. The values of personal liberty and distrust of governmental action should be well regarded in deliberating these points. But remember that corporations are just as good at removing these, and Unions or Governments are really about the only effective ( read powerfull enough ) entities to counter this.
And they are not becoming that much wealthier.
How much are they paid again?
I dont think you have to give an email address.
If you do, find Scott's and give that one!
Collect the facts you have, make darned sure they are all 100%, hand them to SpamCop. They use it in this suit to disprove the "they just dont remember" statement ( 1 counterexample disproves a claim... ). Be ready to testify.
No, see, that is part of the magic. When you press the button for more than one second, you *are in* Soviet Russia, then the radio tunes you, then you are back where you started ( which may or may not be Soviet Russia ).
We produce the documents, which are then ignored by the business person.
Those business persons dont want to talk to you as a development manager about how to specify the project, they want you to just go produce the darned thing, and get it right the first time. And dont bug him / her / it or his / her's / it's staff.
I dont know how many times business has told me something like "that only happens on rare occasions". Like I dont have to account for it. Never mind if I dont, that business person will be first in my face about how I could overlook something so important.
No, offshoring is about the money. The business can have all the definition they want. The specs are usually, as I understand it, not produced offshore.
It is not the easy money. As a programmer who was around before the "bubble", there were many many undisciplined shops before, during and after, at least from where I sit.
The problem is that the business and sales types that run these companies, by and large, dont understand software development, and dont want to understand it. Further, they do not listen to the development managers that they hire, and often overrule them, using their own misunderstanding to guide them.
Or is that "j-ello"
As in "jello world".
Will the childish attitude of about 50% of the posts on these subjects ever decrease
Probably not, and I agree that that is bad.
When is this "M$ is the bad guy RAA!!" paradigm going to vanish? It's certainly not useful to stereotype everything they do as bad, considering they're so successful (funny how often people utterly ignore that).
As soon as MS abandons the bulk of the bad business habits that have earned it the bad reputation that it has.
I believe many people have to take a step back, and try to be more humble, rational individuals.
Very very true, on both sides of the fence. I would love to see MS become a more humble, rational company, for instance. More concerned with what is right and legal and good for the whole community, less concerned with what it can afford to get away with. I would love to see no "Microsoft is automatically bad" comments, but reasoned discourse.
Start realizing that Microsoft can be your best friend if they're given enough time.
Friendship is a two way street.
They have some of the most skilled software designers/engineers around, so they have HUGE HUGE potential
True, but no more or less than anyone else around.
F/OSS-Ball.
Get it right.
for the purist GNU/F/OSS-Ball.