Advertising is more than just informing someone. It's informing someone with the intent of getting them to give you money they would not have given you otherwise. What we, as good citizens and neighbors, should want is for everyone to make the best decisions based on the best information. The way people do that is to use non-biased information sources. There's no way that using biased information can lead to better decisions than non-biased information, so advertising is always harmful.
When you lose your job, please remember these words of wisdom, and submit no job applications, resumes, or talk to anyone about your skills and abilities.
If I walk into a shop, I can pick up a fact sheet telling me the specs of the computer I'm looking at. If I switch on the TV, I see a flashy ad telling me that this computer has 32 Gigabytes of high capacity memory and Intel Quad-core processor inside (ba-da-da-ding) for superfast gameplay and faster browsing!
Which of those is my CV more like?
OK, so large magazine adverts typically often you the full spec, but either that's after the attention grab at the top which constitutes the main advert, or you're reading one of those thick computer mags from the turn of the century that was essentially a multi-supplier catalogue, or a paper-based market square if you prefer. But that's not typical of advertising.
Dude, black and white thinking -- you got a severe case of it. Please see a doctor.
... are too specific. The concept of an Atomic Operation is important; database transactions are just a domain-specific example.
Is that really a problem? It's a pretty good way to introduce the concept, because the whole idea of data consistency is easy to get you head round with a bunch of tables.
Besides, what other computer paradigm comes with the tools to implement atomicity as standard? Under most OO systems you have to unwind the changes in exception handlers... and that's before you get to something as basic as C.
Looking at it another way, one of the biggest gaps in computing is that we stick to a single-paradigm in most programming, and multi-paradigm programming scares most people. Automated database querying is about the only multi-paradigm experience a lot of programmers ever get. (Shame most of the SQL APIs are so poorly integrated into their host environments.)
I can't really disagree with most of the stuff he mentions, but where's the mathematics? Statistics, graph theory, set theory, calculus, algebra and multidimensional algebra taken together provide the basis for the solution to a lot of hard problems. For one thing, how can you talk about optimisation if you don't know how about polynomials and exponentials.
I cannot, for the life of me, think of the last time I wrote a program where I didn't have to rearrange a simple mathematical expression like that at least once. Unless we're all writing text adventures and parsers now?
Exactly: where you have to rearrange the expression. Why doesn't the computer do it for you?
Oh, algebra is very much useful for programming. But not the "x+2=4, what is x?" kind but rather the modern algebra kind (I'm in a constant state of being awestruck by the American high school math terminology time and again.)
As others have said, what other kind of algebra is there?
But more to the point, the obsession with the declarative programming paradigm is one of the things holding programming back. Algebra is a core part of classical mathematics and therefore is an underlying component of all mathematical thought. Deterministic problem solvers are a standard tool in research, but it's a black art as far as most programmers are concerned. Worse, many consider it somehow "not real programming" on grounds of being unoptimised.
And so what? Code first, optimise later. Why should we concern ourselves with writing a task-specific problem-solver at the start of the project just because of some stupid prejudice against non-specific code?
IF your employer avoids paying your training, then get it yourself and get out of there! It's as simple as that.
I did. Note: "I was in IT". Being single, with no kids, I had time to do it. For my colleagues bringing up children, it wasn't so simple. But the company was denying us all promised rewards. And because there's no real union presence in IT, there was no-one to push to force employers to keep their promises.
So for $30K you can discover how you learn, eh? Wonderful. The problem is that this knowledge is useless, because no-one knows how to teach to it anyway. It's like a diagnosis of hypercortisomal pneumocerbrebodoma. We don't know what effects this condition has, and we don't know how to treat it, but we know you have it. Thank you, come again soon.
There's this misconception that flies through many heads: that training is something that you are entitled to "for free".
There's this other misconception that flies through many heads: that the only thing you're entitled to from your employer is "a salary". There's a reason things like training, career progression etc are promised at interview: these things attract employees. I wanted to work for an employer that would further my career -- this employer promised that, then failed to deliver. Was it naive of me to accept their word for it? Probably so. Was it abysmal behaviour on behalf of my employer? Definitely.
But is it wanting something "for free" to expect the benefits advertised during the recruitment process? If you think so, you're an idiot.
A corporate megafarm doesn't even need the loan. The lease system might put some semblance of "ownership" in the hands of the lessee, but it's not the same thing....
Posted from College Station, home of Texas A&M and the Fightin Texas Aggies.
There is civilisation beyond the borders of your non-functioning countries, you know. I live in a rural area in another country on another continent, where farms are increasingly owned by conglomerates. You own your own megafarm. Great. Globally, megafarms are mostly the property of investment funds.
Farming is a bogus example. Upping food production supported a population explosion which manned the factories of the industrial revolution. But there is no industry which needs that sort of manpower now -- there really is nowhere for all those people to go.
Furthermore, the industrial revolution devalued human labour, and we ended up with poorhouses, company towns and the like. We had children crushed by machinery, because binning one carpet because of the stains of a squashed "fluff-picker" was cheaper than instituting safety procedures that would prevent the incidental killings.
It's only a win within your company if you eat into the market share or your competitors, in which case they're forced to downsize and the number of people employed in the industry goes down anyway, which is not a "net" win.
To be fair, a common complaint a lot of workers have is that companies promise training and personal development that never materialises. I was in IT and desperately tried to get myself trained up for the type of roles that wouldn't go off-shore, but the company always found excuses not to train me. (The training budget for any given year was never fully spent because of the number of hoops we had to jump through to get a course approved.)
Yes, but in the old days the guy driving the tractor probably owned it. Nobody with the money to buy a $2000000 combine harvester is going to lower himself to driving it.
You make a few flawed assumptions. As the technology sector grows, so too does the need for developers (and other technical staff). Thus, the demand for developers increases. Whatever "Grade" you want to slap on to the minimum skill set for entry-level developers is irrelevant because as the demand increases, the chances of getting into those jobs with a smaller skill set increases per the law of supply and demand. These are much better paying jobs than flipping burgers.
You make a pretty naive assumption there. So yes, the unskilled jobs go, and there are more skilled jobs developing the machines than there were before, but those skilled developer jobs must necessarily have an overall cost that is significantly less than the labour being replaced, or the machines would be unviable. So you eliminate thousands of €7.25/hour jobs and replace them with hundreds (if you're lucky) of €15/hour jobs. A tenth of the jobs at twice the wage still means cutting the overall salary bill to 20% of its previous level, which is overall bad for most members of society.
Someone without a family should have the ability to compete on price with someone who does. Stopping them is immoral.
Sorry, the "race to the bottom" is good for submarinists only. If you allow single people to undermine the ability of parents to provide for their families, you're mortgaging your future by killing off an entire generation of workers.
The money goes to the owner of the business who invested in that machine, to the engineers who spent their time designing and building it and to the shareholders in the form of profits. Alternatively this allows a lower cost of product in which case it goes nowhere, except not out of the consumers pocket. This is why in real terms the cost products can fall.
But this is of course against the will of the prophet Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations the first book of the capitalist scripture. Smith argued that by collectivising and corporatising, and by simultaneously industrialising, individual craftsmen would be able to increase their net worth.
Was it the prophet or the disciples who got it wrong?
Which is a completely bogus trampling of my personal property rights. Property is property.
You contradict yourself. First you're talking about "personal property rights", then you say "property is property", ignoring your previously mentioned category of "personal property". The first and inalienable right of property is that someone is not allowed to take it off you. You have a right to sell your property, of course, but only if you comply with the same local trade laws as everybody else in the country. If you were allowed to ignore local trade laws on the grounds that you bought your stock overseas... well, what isn't imported from overseas these days? Are we going to exempt Japanese cars from road safety legislation on the grounds of "personal property"?
Still, even a teacher in East Palo Alto could probably teach them not to end a sentence with a preposition....
I'm assuming East Palo Alto is a largely Hispanic area then, because not ending a sentence with a preposition is fine for Spanish and for French (remember, the English elite were mostly French, hence words like élite), but English is a different language. This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.
Slashdot Mirror
Advertising is more than just informing someone. It's informing someone with the intent of getting them to give you money they would not have given you otherwise. What we, as good citizens and neighbors, should want is for everyone to make the best decisions based on the best information. The way people do that is to use non-biased information sources. There's no way that using biased information can lead to better decisions than non-biased information, so advertising is always harmful.
When you lose your job, please remember these words of wisdom, and submit no job applications, resumes, or talk to anyone about your skills and abilities.
If I walk into a shop, I can pick up a fact sheet telling me the specs of the computer I'm looking at. If I switch on the TV, I see a flashy ad telling me that this computer has 32 Gigabytes of high capacity memory and Intel Quad-core processor inside (ba-da-da-ding) for superfast gameplay and faster browsing!
Which of those is my CV more like?
OK, so large magazine adverts typically often you the full spec, but either that's after the attention grab at the top which constitutes the main advert, or you're reading one of those thick computer mags from the turn of the century that was essentially a multi-supplier catalogue, or a paper-based market square if you prefer. But that's not typical of advertising.
Dude, black and white thinking -- you got a severe case of it. Please see a doctor.
And how are you any better?
... are too specific. The concept of an Atomic Operation is important; database transactions are just a domain-specific example.
Is that really a problem? It's a pretty good way to introduce the concept, because the whole idea of data consistency is easy to get you head round with a bunch of tables.
Besides, what other computer paradigm comes with the tools to implement atomicity as standard? Under most OO systems you have to unwind the changes in exception handlers... and that's before you get to something as basic as C.
Looking at it another way, one of the biggest gaps in computing is that we stick to a single-paradigm in most programming, and multi-paradigm programming scares most people. Automated database querying is about the only multi-paradigm experience a lot of programmers ever get. (Shame most of the SQL APIs are so poorly integrated into their host environments.)
I can't really disagree with most of the stuff he mentions, but where's the mathematics? Statistics, graph theory, set theory, calculus, algebra and multidimensional algebra taken together provide the basis for the solution to a lot of hard problems. For one thing, how can you talk about optimisation if you don't know how about polynomials and exponentials.
I cannot, for the life of me, think of the last time I wrote a program where I didn't have to rearrange a simple mathematical expression like that at least once. Unless we're all writing text adventures and parsers now?
Exactly: where you have to rearrange the expression. Why doesn't the computer do it for you?
Oh, algebra is very much useful for programming. But not the "x+2=4, what is x?" kind but rather the modern algebra kind (I'm in a constant state of being awestruck by the American high school math terminology time and again.)
As others have said, what other kind of algebra is there?
But more to the point, the obsession with the declarative programming paradigm is one of the things holding programming back. Algebra is a core part of classical mathematics and therefore is an underlying component of all mathematical thought. Deterministic problem solvers are a standard tool in research, but it's a black art as far as most programmers are concerned. Worse, many consider it somehow "not real programming" on grounds of being unoptimised.
And so what? Code first, optimise later. Why should we concern ourselves with writing a task-specific problem-solver at the start of the project just because of some stupid prejudice against non-specific code?
Yeah, be aggressive, it helps the conversation.
I was only responding in kind. You sa
IF your employer avoids paying your training, then get it yourself and get out of there! It's as simple as that.
I did. Note: "I was in IT". Being single, with no kids, I had time to do it. For my colleagues bringing up children, it wasn't so simple. But the company was denying us all promised rewards. And because there's no real union presence in IT, there was no-one to push to force employers to keep their promises.
All that said, what solutions would you suggest that wouldn't get in the way of economic and technological progress?
You're assuming that economic progress is a good thing. Do we really need money?
So for $30K you can discover how you learn, eh? Wonderful. The problem is that this knowledge is useless, because no-one knows how to teach to it anyway. It's like a diagnosis of hypercortisomal pneumocerbrebodoma. We don't know what effects this condition has, and we don't know how to treat it, but we know you have it. Thank you, come again soon.
For heaven's sake: Fix the English spelling system.
There, FTFY.
You racist -- breakfast doesn't necessarily mean oatmeal!!!
There's this misconception that flies through many heads: that training is something that you are entitled to "for free".
There's this other misconception that flies through many heads: that the only thing you're entitled to from your employer is "a salary". There's a reason things like training, career progression etc are promised at interview: these things attract employees. I wanted to work for an employer that would further my career -- this employer promised that, then failed to deliver. Was it naive of me to accept their word for it? Probably so. Was it abysmal behaviour on behalf of my employer? Definitely.
But is it wanting something "for free" to expect the benefits advertised during the recruitment process? If you think so, you're an idiot.
A corporate megafarm doesn't even need the loan. The lease system might put some semblance of "ownership" in the hands of the lessee, but it's not the same thing....
You must be a Yankee city slicker....
Posted from College Station, home of Texas A&M and the Fightin Texas Aggies.
There is civilisation beyond the borders of your non-functioning countries, you know. I live in a rural area in another country on another continent, where farms are increasingly owned by conglomerates. You own your own megafarm. Great. Globally, megafarms are mostly the property of investment funds.
Farming is a bogus example. Upping food production supported a population explosion which manned the factories of the industrial revolution. But there is no industry which needs that sort of manpower now -- there really is nowhere for all those people to go.
Furthermore, the industrial revolution devalued human labour, and we ended up with poorhouses, company towns and the like. We had children crushed by machinery, because binning one carpet because of the stains of a squashed "fluff-picker" was cheaper than instituting safety procedures that would prevent the incidental killings.
It's only a win within your company if you eat into the market share or your competitors, in which case they're forced to downsize and the number of people employed in the industry goes down anyway, which is not a "net" win.
To be fair, a common complaint a lot of workers have is that companies promise training and personal development that never materialises. I was in IT and desperately tried to get myself trained up for the type of roles that wouldn't go off-shore, but the company always found excuses not to train me. (The training budget for any given year was never fully spent because of the number of hoops we had to jump through to get a course approved.)
Yes, but in the old days the guy driving the tractor probably owned it. Nobody with the money to buy a $2000000 combine harvester is going to lower himself to driving it.
You make a few flawed assumptions. As the technology sector grows, so too does the need for developers (and other technical staff). Thus, the demand for developers increases. Whatever "Grade" you want to slap on to the minimum skill set for entry-level developers is irrelevant because as the demand increases, the chances of getting into those jobs with a smaller skill set increases per the law of supply and demand. These are much better paying jobs than flipping burgers.
You make a pretty naive assumption there. So yes, the unskilled jobs go, and there are more skilled jobs developing the machines than there were before, but those skilled developer jobs must necessarily have an overall cost that is significantly less than the labour being replaced, or the machines would be unviable. So you eliminate thousands of €7.25/hour jobs and replace them with hundreds (if you're lucky) of €15/hour jobs. A tenth of the jobs at twice the wage still means cutting the overall salary bill to 20% of its previous level, which is overall bad for most members of society.
Someone without a family should have the ability to compete on price with someone who does. Stopping them is immoral.
Sorry, the "race to the bottom" is good for submarinists only. If you allow single people to undermine the ability of parents to provide for their families, you're mortgaging your future by killing off an entire generation of workers.
The money goes to the owner of the business who invested in that machine, to the engineers who spent their time designing and building it and to the shareholders in the form of profits. Alternatively this allows a lower cost of product in which case it goes nowhere, except not out of the consumers pocket. This is why in real terms the cost products can fall.
But this is of course against the will of the prophet Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations the first book of the capitalist scripture. Smith argued that by collectivising and corporatising, and by simultaneously industrialising, individual craftsmen would be able to increase their net worth.
Was it the prophet or the disciples who got it wrong?
Basic dialup is, what, $10/mo.
Dialup? That's fine for email, but most of the web assumes you've got at least ADSL...
...and people try to claim home taping isn't evil.
Which is a completely bogus trampling of my personal property rights. Property is property.
You contradict yourself. First you're talking about "personal property rights", then you say "property is property", ignoring your previously mentioned category of "personal property". The first and inalienable right of property is that someone is not allowed to take it off you. You have a right to sell your property, of course, but only if you comply with the same local trade laws as everybody else in the country. If you were allowed to ignore local trade laws on the grounds that you bought your stock overseas... well, what isn't imported from overseas these days? Are we going to exempt Japanese cars from road safety legislation on the grounds of "personal property"?
Still, even a teacher in East Palo Alto could probably teach them not to end a sentence with a preposition... .
I'm assuming East Palo Alto is a largely Hispanic area then, because not ending a sentence with a preposition is fine for Spanish and for French (remember, the English elite were mostly French, hence words like élite), but English is a different language. This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.