I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard.
That's not quite what I said.
I said you'd need to not think very hard to not see any drawbacks or potential pitfalls to what you suggested. It's the kind of statement that usually would be followed by a facetious, "What could possibly go wrong?"
Have you considered the possibility that those people might actually not care and might actually believe no one else should, either, and that no attempt at humor is involved?
Considering the 4 had some well-publicized problems the 3 didn't (whether or not you consider those problems significant in your own case), is your statement based on a belief that lightning can't strike the same place twice?
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it," Steve Jobs said at the time.
In other news, Steve Jobs is seeking to have a new liver transplanted in along with whatever bodily organ it is that keeps a person from being a huge douchebag.
If only he could rise to the ethical standards of 1990s Microsoft. Yeah, it's gotten that bad.
you can easily ignore Mr. Anal Indenter. If you're doing a in-person everyone-gather-round-the-conference-table review the answer to that is "Noted. Moving on." And that's the end of it.
Several times I've been unfortunate enough to have Mr. Anal Indenter be the boss/manager involved.
In my experience, around 20% of developers are the kind of hyper-anal people who will argue endlessly about the stupidest details. Your chances of having at least one on any given team is extremely high.
In one case I (and everyone on tha team) lost literally 3 hours arguing over whether a particular boolean variable should be named something like 'finished' or something like 'isFinished'. And everyone but the one guy who had a hard-on about it conceded the point within the first fifteen minutes.
In some teams, management is wise enough to tell the hyper-anal guys they're not invited to other people's code reviews anymore. In a lot, they're not, and good lord can you waste ridiculous amounts of time on nothing important or useful that way.
TL;DR: I like code reviews in theory but in practice for most teams they waste much more time than they save.
FWIW, that Australia was once the English prison colony is pretty much the only thing they teach American kids about Australia, at least when I was in school.
Which, silly, but if you're wondering why you hear that one so much that's probably why.
When you're writing software for a business and one of their requirements increases the complexity/time of the project for no good reason, you talk about this with management and generally they come around to your way of thinking. (Or they agree to spend the extra time, but mostly no.)
When you're writing software for a government and run into an unreasonable requirement like that, oftentimes there can be no wiggling on it, because it's a [b]law[/b], usually made by people who aren't involved in the project directly in any way.
You know what's even cheaper for enterprise? Continuing to use IE6.
And that doesn't require some kind of odd closest-Fortune-500-equivalent of the United Nations to get together.
If a big corporation can keep doing exactly what it's been doing without spending any money that it's not already been spending, it almost always will.
I don't know what things are like in your market, but around here there's a lot more programmer jobs than qualified people to fill them.
Offshoring isn't exactly on my top 10 list of worries. 5-6 years ago there was (locally) a big rush to do a lot of it with development work, but a few projects later most of the companies have figured out that getting offshoring to work is a lot harder and more expensive than it first appears, and so that work is coming back.
I was never complaining about what was being done to me, as I own neither kind of phone and have no dog in this fight.
It's also not pompous to use the word stupid to describe the way someone else is describing people.
Look, I get that English obviously isn't your first language, and I'm positive I speak whatever your native tongue is a lot worse than you speak English, but you're missing really basic things here and that's making it impossible to have a real conversation.
Look, if you're not specific about what you mean, you can't get angry when it's not read the way you'd apparently like. It's your fault for not saying: "I don't like when they call me stupid."
Really. So you're telling me there are Android fans who are telling Apple fans that they bought iPhones because they're too poor to afford an Android phone?
I wouldn't, myself, call Gore exceedingly brave for it but you're definitely wrong that there weren't any negative political consequences for it. In the 90s I can remember hearing people (in person rather than via the internet, that having been the style at the time, along with tying an onion to your belt) call Gore a treehugger in a derogatory way and say that they'd never vote for him because he'd probably side with trees over Americans.
Which is completely stupid, but so are a significant subset of voters.
Even today I know many people who genuinely believe that Gore only came out against global warming as part of an elaborate conspiracy to become wealthy by selling green solutions which aren't actually needed because global warming is a complete hoax.
Hey, large-breasted women bear a lot of burdens in life (some literally). They have a hard time finding bras and clothes that fit and people hardly ever look them in the eye -- but at least they can look at Lara Croft and see someone who looks like them. Don't take that away from them!
despite publicly stating he wanted the United States to get rid of their oil dependency.
... just like every U.S. president in, what, the last 50 years? Certainly every one in my lifetime.
Saying you want the US to get rid of our oil dependency is like saying you support the troops or think America is great: it's shit every politician says, so you should pretty much just disregard it.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it interesting that you seem to believe a person could only be an anarchist if they don't think very hard.
That's not quite what I said.
I said you'd need to not think very hard to not see any drawbacks or potential pitfalls to what you suggested. It's the kind of statement that usually would be followed by a facetious, "What could possibly go wrong?"
Have you considered the possibility that those people might actually not care and might actually believe no one else should, either, and that no attempt at humor is involved?
If you can't come up with any reason why that's a bad idea, you're either not thinking very hard or you're an anarchist.
If I were a betting man, I'd lay money on it being both.
Everyone thinks some of government should be cut.
No one agrees on what that some should be.
That's the entire problem.
Considering the 4 had some well-publicized problems the 3 didn't (whether or not you consider those problems significant in your own case), is your statement based on a belief that lightning can't strike the same place twice?
That sounds like something the kind of socially maladjusted person who would eat a cake alone in an igloo would say. :P
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it," Steve Jobs said at the time.
In other news, Steve Jobs is seeking to have a new liver transplanted in along with whatever bodily organ it is that keeps a person from being a huge douchebag.
If only he could rise to the ethical standards of 1990s Microsoft. Yeah, it's gotten that bad.
you can easily ignore Mr. Anal Indenter. If you're doing a in-person everyone-gather-round-the-conference-table review the answer to that is "Noted. Moving on." And that's the end of it.
Several times I've been unfortunate enough to have Mr. Anal Indenter be the boss/manager involved.
Not much salvaging that.
So this.
In my experience, around 20% of developers are the kind of hyper-anal people who will argue endlessly about the stupidest details. Your chances of having at least one on any given team is extremely high.
In one case I (and everyone on tha team) lost literally 3 hours arguing over whether a particular boolean variable should be named something like 'finished' or something like 'isFinished'. And everyone but the one guy who had a hard-on about it conceded the point within the first fifteen minutes.
In some teams, management is wise enough to tell the hyper-anal guys they're not invited to other people's code reviews anymore. In a lot, they're not, and good lord can you waste ridiculous amounts of time on nothing important or useful that way.
TL;DR: I like code reviews in theory but in practice for most teams they waste much more time than they save.
FWIW, that Australia was once the English prison colony is pretty much the only thing they teach American kids about Australia, at least when I was in school.
Which, silly, but if you're wondering why you hear that one so much that's probably why.
This is a pretty good point.
When you're writing software for a business and one of their requirements increases the complexity/time of the project for no good reason, you talk about this with management and generally they come around to your way of thinking. (Or they agree to spend the extra time, but mostly no.)
When you're writing software for a government and run into an unreasonable requirement like that, oftentimes there can be no wiggling on it, because it's a [b]law[/b], usually made by people who aren't involved in the project directly in any way.
I was part of a software project for a fairly large city's government that successfully completed early and under budget.
Maybe that's the equivalent of lightning striking but it does happen at least sometimes.
Even shipping a bad game is better than shipping no games.
In the game industry, the number and quality of games you've shipped is generally the only part of your resume that actually matters.
Well, no.
You know what's even cheaper for enterprise? Continuing to use IE6.
And that doesn't require some kind of odd closest-Fortune-500-equivalent of the United Nations to get together.
If a big corporation can keep doing exactly what it's been doing without spending any money that it's not already been spending, it almost always will.
Eh.
You can't make it impossible for anyone to get anything, but that doesn't mean that making it harder for someone to get something serves no purpose.
I don't know what things are like in your market, but around here there's a lot more programmer jobs than qualified people to fill them.
Offshoring isn't exactly on my top 10 list of worries. 5-6 years ago there was (locally) a big rush to do a lot of it with development work, but a few projects later most of the companies have figured out that getting offshoring to work is a lot harder and more expensive than it first appears, and so that work is coming back.
I was never complaining about what was being done to me, as I own neither kind of phone and have no dog in this fight.
It's also not pompous to use the word stupid to describe the way someone else is describing people.
Look, I get that English obviously isn't your first language, and I'm positive I speak whatever your native tongue is a lot worse than you speak English, but you're missing really basic things here and that's making it impossible to have a real conversation.
I give. I'm done trying to correct for your poor reading comprehension and writing skills.
Look, if you're not specific about what you mean, you can't get angry when it's not read the way you'd apparently like. It's your fault for not saying: "I don't like when they call me stupid."
Really. So you're telling me there are Android fans who are telling Apple fans that they bought iPhones because they're too poor to afford an Android phone?
That'd be complete nonsense.
God damn that's pompous. People who picked a different phone than you are either stupid, poor, or both?
Blowing yourself in public? There's apparently an app for that.
I wouldn't, myself, call Gore exceedingly brave for it but you're definitely wrong that there weren't any negative political consequences for it. In the 90s I can remember hearing people (in person rather than via the internet, that having been the style at the time, along with tying an onion to your belt) call Gore a treehugger in a derogatory way and say that they'd never vote for him because he'd probably side with trees over Americans.
Which is completely stupid, but so are a significant subset of voters.
Even today I know many people who genuinely believe that Gore only came out against global warming as part of an elaborate conspiracy to become wealthy by selling green solutions which aren't actually needed because global warming is a complete hoax.
Hey, large-breasted women bear a lot of burdens in life (some literally). They have a hard time finding bras and clothes that fit and people hardly ever look them in the eye -- but at least they can look at Lara Croft and see someone who looks like them. Don't take that away from them!
despite publicly stating he wanted the United States to get rid of their oil dependency.
... just like every U.S. president in, what, the last 50 years? Certainly every one in my lifetime.
Saying you want the US to get rid of our oil dependency is like saying you support the troops or think America is great: it's shit every politician says, so you should pretty much just disregard it.
Your sarcasm detector isn't broken. That's not considered expensive here.