Even the 9-11 hijackers used nothing more sophsticated than some basic flight training and fucking box-cutters.
Suddenly these guys have a submarine and the sophistication to locate and cut deep-sea communications cables?
What makes you think "these guys" need anything "more sophisticated than some basic [dive] training and fucking box-cutters?" Sure, the cables are deep in the middle of the ocean, but they're not that deep closer to the shore. Besides, a previous article on this topic mentioned something about a ship being able to sever the cables by dragging its anchor, so they could use that tactic too.
The $190 one turns out to be a piece of crap if you read the reviews, and the next cheapest is $420. Of course, neither has the right form factor to fit in my 2.5" SATA drive bay anyway -- the cheapest to do that is the RiDATA, at $700.
You know, when you say "$499 for an iPod Touch" it sounds like a lot, but then you realize: manufacturers are charging twice that for 32GB flash hard drives. It's too bad it's not packaged usefully in the Touch; otherwise I'd cannibalize one for my laptop!
See, most of the time the software developer is not where the responsibility lies. Nobody is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and it is management's responsibility to make sure that the organization is capable of spotting such errors and correcting them. You know... management: the guys in the corner offices that make three times the pay of the people who work for them.
In engineering, this "manager" is called the "Engineer of Record," and he's the P.E. who signs off on all the plans. This is the way things should be done in software, too: with a lead developer in charge, not an MBA. Now, the lead developer doesn't have to necessarily be a "software engineer" or have a license unless it's something like your Space Shuttle control systems example. But there's no case where a non-programmer should be responsible for the quality of the software.
I mean, why should Medicare ever go up more than GDP?
GDP is the product of working-age people. Medicare (along with Social Security) is consumed mostly by the big bubble of Baby Boomers, who are entering retirement. In other words, that sort of program is paying out to a larger group while drawing its funds from a smaller group. The consequence of that, simply by the numbers, is that the per-[working-age]-capita Medicare contribution has to be a bigger percentage than the per-[working-age]-capita GDP in order for the Medicare program to cover its costs.
Of course, that doesn't mean people, especially young people like me, have to be happy about it! But it is "reasonable" from a mathematical point of view.
For example, when engineers design and build, they have to contend with a variety of concerns. Most of these concerns are calculable, limiting, and realistic. As a simple example of the forces of nature, wind power is calculable and only occurs within expected limits. Things are built to withstand extreme winds. But there is a threshold -- we don't build to withstand 5,000mph winds because we know it just won't happen. Wind is wind, it increases or decreases, nothing more.
Almost. Wind is calculable and only is likely to occur within expected limits. The probability of a 5,000mph wind gust is vanishingly small, but not quite zero. I mention this because all of these "calculable" concerns you mention are based on probability and statistical analysis, and the engineer's decision of what probability of failure is acceptable, not absolute known values.
Here's another way to look at it using the bridge example. If an engineer 50 years ago built a bridge to support the horse and buggy, not knowing that the invention of the modern-day car was on the horizon, he cannot be held accountable for the bridge's collapse under the weight of multiple vehicles.
But the engineer who did the most recent serviceability analysis, and failed to rate the bridge low enough to force it to be closed, could be held accountable.
A great deal of crap software is actually pushed out the door against the objections of the developers that created it.
Yeah, that's another issue: if people calling themselves "software engineers" were required to be licensed, and really important code (which is not even slightly close to "all code"!) was required to be vetted by a licensed software engineer to be used, then the software engineer in charge would suddenly have a lot of power to resist that kind of thing.
The fact that you are studying both civil engineering AND computer science makes me think that you have a limited knowledge of software development processes and the progress that has taken place in that field.
Possibly. I've been specializing in graphics and systems on the CS side, not software engineering.
The domain of software engineering has grown very specialized in the past decade and encompasses a lot more than UML and unit tests and is not something that can be studied casually or would even be touched on in a computer science minor.
Glad to hear it. But the "software practicum" class I took a couple of years ago provided no indication of that. Also, I'm double-majoring, not just getting a minor.
I would love to see you repeating the above statements in front of the _software_engineering_ teams in charge of A380. You can replace A380 with
any advanced means of transportation or any advanced defense system.
That's fine, and I don't have any problem with those people. What I have a problem with is the other 99% of people who call themselves "software engineers," who aren't working on stuff like that, and who aren't working at the same level of accountability.
Since you are also a civil engineer, no doubt you heavily rely on CAD applications to create structurally robust designs and you are not manually applying statics for every brick and column in your design. So, in the end you depend on the rigorousness of the CAD software engineers to ensure the rigorousness of your structural designs.
Yep. In fact, I actually work on such a program. But guess what: the people in charge of it are P.E.s! In fact, one of them spends a considerable part of his time ranting and raving about how we shouldn't, as engineers, rely on the software -- not even his software. He spends an entire lecture every semester drilling that into the heads of his students, and often travels to speak about the same topic at other various organizations.
So believe me, I know about those sorts of issues. Oh, and you've got it backwards: engineers don't (or at least, shouldn't) use software to check the rigorousness of their structural designs. They use their designs (with the associated calculations) to check the rigorousness of their software!
Software is different, in that small mistakes often have very large and far-reaching consequences.
Ha! You want to talk about small mistakes? Here's a small mistake: a contractor didn't want to bother threading a few nuts up a really long rod, so he cut the rod into three pieces and attached them to the beams they were supporting separately. No big deal, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to have to spend hours spinning nuts on a rod either!
Well, guess what: it killed 114 people! So don't go telling me that software is "different" because of small mistakes. Because it really damn well isn't!
Being as that you are yet still a student I will let this statement slide with just a link to some infamous bugs where people have in fact died due to people screwing up.
I'm well aware of those examples; we were told all about them in a few of my introductory CS classes. However, they just prove my point: the people designing those programs should have been, and likely were, engineers! Specifically, I'll bet the code for Mariner I was written (or at least vetted) by an aerospace engineer, and the Therac-25 incident was the fault of a mechanical engineer (because he should have verified that the software was correct or, finding himself unable to do so because he wasn't a computer scientist, at least kept the damn mechanical safety interlocks!).
With your narrow definition of an engineer there is no doubt that there is such a thing as a Software Engineer.
Yes, I agree -- I mentioned exceptions at the end of my previous post. However, most people calling themselves "Software Engineers" don't meet that definition!
I agree with pretty much everything you said, which is why I'm against programming being held to the same standard...
Oh, I know -- and I didn't say it should be either! I think that we shouldn't hold programming to the same standard as engineering, and nor should we call it that when it's not.
Software engineers actually do write applications that can kill people, or cause much harm otherwise (be it financial, etc). And we do have to conform to standards and regulations, whether government or corporate.
Yeah, and I already made an exception for that sort of thing. However, that's the vast minority of software, and most people who call themselves "software engineers" aren't working on things like that.
according to the grandparents halfbaked logic... yes. However that would also make Napoleon, Ceasar, Hitler, and Bush all engineers too because they screwed up and people died too.
Nope, that's your half-baked logic, not mine. My statement was "if you are an Engineer, then people die if you make a mistake." Your statement is the converse: "if people die if you make a mistake, then you are an Engineer." Sorry, but those two statements are not logically equivalent.
Depends. Is your bridge spanning a 2-lane highway in rural Iowa, or the Akashi Strait (crossing a major fault line)? I'd say that designing Windows Vista is somewhere in between the two. (Incidentally, we should also remember that Microsoft failed to properly design Vista, really.)
However, as the other reply mentioned, the difficulty is irrelevant. It's about the accountability and responsibility. So here's a better question: Which project is more accountable to its users? The answer is obviously the bridge, by an infinitely large margin. And that applies to the overpass in Iowa just as much as it does to the suspension bridge in Japan!
Many millions of dollars later in court, it was verified that the Engineer f'ed up the plans and the construction crews were not at fault.
You just proved his point! There was a huge court case, and it was verified as to which party was at fault. The Engineer might have lost his license over it, too, if the damages were that high. So yes, that's the difference: the Engineer was held accountable.
But software is different, for some reason. For example, do you see that happen with Microsoft? Hell no! If Microsoft were held accountable for its software like Engineers are, the company would have been sued into oblivion and Bill Gates would be in jail for gross negligence. And so would the responsible parties of every other software company.
I'm a student of both civil engineering and computer science, and I'll tell you this: most people who call themselves "software engineers" are wankers who have no idea what Engineering actually means. So they have some UML and unit tests? Well, that's wonderful -- at least they're not just randomly bashing on keyboards. But it ain't Engineering.
So what is Engineering, you might ask? Well, here's a clue: being an Engineer means that when you screw up, people die. It means that the thing you're making has to conform to standards for safety and performance. And those standards are legally enforced, and you have to be able to prove that your work meets them. It means responsibility. Ask people what professions they think require high responsibility, and they might say something like "doctor." Well, doctors really don't have all that much: unlike Engineers, they can only kill their patients one at a time. Engineers kill people in big groups.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to disparage computer science, or programming. But us programmers shouldn't pretend that our craft is anything other than that: a craft. It's not Engineering, it's not even science unless you're doing theory, and compared to either of those things we're still bumbling around in the Dark Ages.
If I were applying for a programming job, and the interviewer told me that my title was going to be "software engineer," you know what I'd do? I'd laugh at him, and then insist he change it to something else. There are exceptions to this, of course: people who are writing code to do things like controlling space ships, performing structural analysis, or regulating a nuclear power plant can likely legitimately call themselves Engineers. But the vast majority of programming jobs aren't like that.
I don't know about her mental health, but she frightens me because she has no principles: she initially voted for the Iraq war because she thought it would help her politically, she didn't divorce her cheating husband because she thought it would help her politically, she wants to restrict video games because she thinks it would help her politically, etc. Basically, she panders to whatever interests that will give her the most money and power. That's scary!
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think "these guys" need anything "more sophisticated than some basic [dive] training and fucking box-cutters?" Sure, the cables are deep in the middle of the ocean, but they're not that deep closer to the shore. Besides, a previous article on this topic mentioned something about a ship being able to sever the cables by dragging its anchor, so they could use that tactic too.
The $190 one turns out to be a piece of crap if you read the reviews, and the next cheapest is $420. Of course, neither has the right form factor to fit in my 2.5" SATA drive bay anyway -- the cheapest to do that is the RiDATA, at $700.
You know, when you say "$499 for an iPod Touch" it sounds like a lot, but then you realize: manufacturers are charging twice that for 32GB flash hard drives. It's too bad it's not packaged usefully in the Touch; otherwise I'd cannibalize one for my laptop!
...to FUCK OFF AND DIE, because I'll go back to fucking dial-up before I pay their ransom!
Where'd that second quote come from? Not only do I not recall writing it, I searched for it in the thread and couldn't find it.
You say that sarcastically, but I actually would like to see something like "OpenPL" (Open Physics Language).
In engineering, this "manager" is called the "Engineer of Record," and he's the P.E. who signs off on all the plans. This is the way things should be done in software, too: with a lead developer in charge, not an MBA. Now, the lead developer doesn't have to necessarily be a "software engineer" or have a license unless it's something like your Space Shuttle control systems example. But there's no case where a non-programmer should be responsible for the quality of the software.
GDP is the product of working-age people. Medicare (along with Social Security) is consumed mostly by the big bubble of Baby Boomers, who are entering retirement. In other words, that sort of program is paying out to a larger group while drawing its funds from a smaller group. The consequence of that, simply by the numbers, is that the per-[working-age]-capita Medicare contribution has to be a bigger percentage than the per-[working-age]-capita GDP in order for the Medicare program to cover its costs.
Of course, that doesn't mean people, especially young people like me, have to be happy about it! But it is "reasonable" from a mathematical point of view.
Yup, you guessed it!
Yes, it's being used for civil engineering. And not only does it run on Windows, but my job is to port it to 64-bit.
Almost. Wind is calculable and only is likely to occur within expected limits. The probability of a 5,000mph wind gust is vanishingly small, but not quite zero. I mention this because all of these "calculable" concerns you mention are based on probability and statistical analysis, and the engineer's decision of what probability of failure is acceptable, not absolute known values.
But the engineer who did the most recent serviceability analysis, and failed to rate the bridge low enough to force it to be closed, could be held accountable.
Yeah, that's another issue: if people calling themselves "software engineers" were required to be licensed, and really important code (which is not even slightly close to "all code"!) was required to be vetted by a licensed software engineer to be used, then the software engineer in charge would suddenly have a lot of power to resist that kind of thing.
Possibly. I've been specializing in graphics and systems on the CS side, not software engineering.
Glad to hear it. But the "software practicum" class I took a couple of years ago provided no indication of that. Also, I'm double-majoring, not just getting a minor.
Hey, can't a guy have some dramatic license? Sure, not every mistake would cause people to die, but some mistakes could.
That's fine, and I don't have any problem with those people. What I have a problem with is the other 99% of people who call themselves "software engineers," who aren't working on stuff like that, and who aren't working at the same level of accountability.
Yep. In fact, I actually work on such a program. But guess what: the people in charge of it are P.E.s! In fact, one of them spends a considerable part of his time ranting and raving about how we shouldn't, as engineers, rely on the software -- not even his software. He spends an entire lecture every semester drilling that into the heads of his students, and often travels to speak about the same topic at other various organizations.
So believe me, I know about those sorts of issues. Oh, and you've got it backwards: engineers don't (or at least, shouldn't) use software to check the rigorousness of their structural designs. They use their designs (with the associated calculations) to check the rigorousness of their software!
Ha! You want to talk about small mistakes? Here's a small mistake: a contractor didn't want to bother threading a few nuts up a really long rod, so he cut the rod into three pieces and attached them to the beams they were supporting separately. No big deal, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to have to spend hours spinning nuts on a rod either!
Well, guess what: it killed 114 people! So don't go telling me that software is "different" because of small mistakes. Because it really damn well isn't!
I'm well aware of those examples; we were told all about them in a few of my introductory CS classes. However, they just prove my point: the people designing those programs should have been, and likely were, engineers! Specifically, I'll bet the code for Mariner I was written (or at least vetted) by an aerospace engineer, and the Therac-25 incident was the fault of a mechanical engineer (because he should have verified that the software was correct or, finding himself unable to do so because he wasn't a computer scientist, at least kept the damn mechanical safety interlocks!).
Yes, I agree -- I mentioned exceptions at the end of my previous post. However, most people calling themselves "Software Engineers" don't meet that definition!
Oh, I know -- and I didn't say it should be either! I think that we shouldn't hold programming to the same standard as engineering, and nor should we call it that when it's not.
Yeah, and I already made an exception for that sort of thing. However, that's the vast minority of software, and most people who call themselves "software engineers" aren't working on things like that.
Nope, that's your half-baked logic, not mine. My statement was "if you are an Engineer, then people die if you make a mistake." Your statement is the converse: "if people die if you make a mistake, then you are an Engineer." Sorry, but those two statements are not logically equivalent.
Depends. Is your bridge spanning a 2-lane highway in rural Iowa, or the Akashi Strait (crossing a major fault line)? I'd say that designing Windows Vista is somewhere in between the two. (Incidentally, we should also remember that Microsoft failed to properly design Vista, really.)
However, as the other reply mentioned, the difficulty is irrelevant. It's about the accountability and responsibility. So here's a better question: Which project is more accountable to its users? The answer is obviously the bridge, by an infinitely large margin. And that applies to the overpass in Iowa just as much as it does to the suspension bridge in Japan!
You just proved his point! There was a huge court case, and it was verified as to which party was at fault. The Engineer might have lost his license over it, too, if the damages were that high. So yes, that's the difference: the Engineer was held accountable.
But software is different, for some reason. For example, do you see that happen with Microsoft? Hell no! If Microsoft were held accountable for its software like Engineers are, the company would have been sued into oblivion and Bill Gates would be in jail for gross negligence. And so would the responsible parties of every other software company.
I'm a student of both civil engineering and computer science, and I'll tell you this: most people who call themselves "software engineers" are wankers who have no idea what Engineering actually means. So they have some UML and unit tests? Well, that's wonderful -- at least they're not just randomly bashing on keyboards. But it ain't Engineering.
So what is Engineering, you might ask? Well, here's a clue: being an Engineer means that when you screw up, people die. It means that the thing you're making has to conform to standards for safety and performance. And those standards are legally enforced, and you have to be able to prove that your work meets them. It means responsibility. Ask people what professions they think require high responsibility, and they might say something like "doctor." Well, doctors really don't have all that much: unlike Engineers, they can only kill their patients one at a time. Engineers kill people in big groups.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to disparage computer science, or programming. But us programmers shouldn't pretend that our craft is anything other than that: a craft. It's not Engineering, it's not even science unless you're doing theory, and compared to either of those things we're still bumbling around in the Dark Ages.
If I were applying for a programming job, and the interviewer told me that my title was going to be "software engineer," you know what I'd do? I'd laugh at him, and then insist he change it to something else. There are exceptions to this, of course: people who are writing code to do things like controlling space ships, performing structural analysis, or regulating a nuclear power plant can likely legitimately call themselves Engineers. But the vast majority of programming jobs aren't like that.
It's also quite un-American for him to put everyone else to a religious test, but that's exactly what he wants to do!
I don't know about her mental health, but she frightens me because she has no principles: she initially voted for the Iraq war because she thought it would help her politically, she didn't divorce her cheating husband because she thought it would help her politically, she wants to restrict video games because she thinks it would help her politically, etc. Basically, she panders to whatever interests that will give her the most money and power. That's scary!
Character and integrity. Barack has it, Hillary doesn't.