The verb google has already been added the new Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Merriam-Webster also says that a correct pronunciation of the word Nuclear is "nyü-, ÷-ky-lr". Go to the site and you can even listen to it being mispronounced. Just saying that I wouldn't take Merriam-Webster to be a reliable source on the english language.
It's more like if Ford made cars and tires.... and only ford approved tires would work on Ford Cars......and then they told Bridgestone they could no longer make Tires for Fords....
This is not an accurate anallogy. As I said above, this is more like Ford telling Bridgestone that they can't use their plant (iOS dev kit) to make Bridgestone tires and that they won't sell Bridgestone tires in the Ford dealerships (Apple App Store).
but neither would I expect Apple to have any control over what advertising 3 party software shows on devices once Apple have sold them(The device).
Actually Apple does not have any control over what you do with the device you bought. The do have control over what you do with the software (iOS) that you license. If you were to install another OS on your iPhone you could run what ever applications that OS supports, there is nothing legally stopping you.
But even that is not an accurate comparison to this situation. As others have pointed out all that Apple is doing here is limiting what products they are going to carry in their store and what products can be made with their licensed development kits.
So yes Ford can't stop you from putting a GM motor in your ford car, but they can stop you from using their manufacturing plant and selling it in their store.
It would be far more "economically unfeasible" if everyone would just "automatically [hang] up on them." My time is far more valuable than that of the agent on the other end of the phone. If I just hang up on them then I have no time lost and they still have to pay for their dialer (which is often a per call cost). Luckily none of that really matters to me because I only use a cell phone, and since it's still a receiver pays economic system, solicitors are in violation of the law if they call me. I haven't received a legal marketing call in over 5 years (I have received a few scam calls but your not going to stop them until people are smart enough to stop falling for it).
This is because most people do not have the courage to act with civil disobedience. Luckily there are enough people who will, and it only takes one person to challenge the law for it to undergo the scrutiny of a jury.
While I strongly support the Sherriff and the other police agencies in Arizona, corrupt officers are not unheard of,
Until Sheriff Joe is exonerated on the current Missappropriation of Funds charge, I'm quite certain there are corrupt officers.
Sorry, I just have a hard time following the logic that a person can be against police corruption yet support Maricopa county sheriff's office (which admittedly you didn't mention what county sheriff you were refering to so I might be making an assumption.)
What is your position on this issue and what can we do to prevent such onerous laws, such as they have in Massachusetts for example, from becoming law here?
First thing would be to stop voting for corrupt politicians (which in Maricopa the Sheriff is more politician than law enforcement). If people continue to elect corrupt politicians then they deserve exactly what they get.
The majority of designers with good knowledge of usability and CSS will build the design to a width of 960px wide as this allows for a usable design inside the max width of the majority of their visitors.
No designer with good knowledge would ever use the measurement of Pixels to determine a dimension displayed to a user. 960px varies in size greatly from machine to machine as a pixel is not a fixed size. 960px on a 100in projection is considerably larger than the same pixes on a smart phone. This is also not taking into account the viewing distance of the viewer.
As much as I was disturbed by the fixed maximum width, because I have a preference for much wider viewing area, or at least one I can control, I was even more disturbed by the unrealistic minimum width. A good layout will be viewable on my phone, laptop, desktop and even game console. What I saw in those examples, though very pretty, were less than optimal on all those devices.
In our society, someone who is sexually attracted to a girl one day from her eighteenth birthday is legally a pedophile
Where is this legal definition of a pedophile? I gather you are going to have a really hard time finding any proof to back up your statement. No Laws, in the United States at least, define what a pedophile is. There are also no laws in the US that regulate thought, and sexual attraction is merely a thought.
and if he acts on that attraction even with her full consent and is caught doing so he will be punished accordingly.
This is also incorrect if you are referring to the US (where this story takes place). First of all you can not be charged with a crime for sexual contact (excluding sodomy) between two fully consenting partners. The Laws you are referring to are referred to as "consent" laws for a reason. The Law states that individuals under a certain age are incapable of giving consent. Semantic difference from what you are saying, but an important distinction if we ever want to be free of unjust laws. More importantly, in the state of Pennsylvania, where the story takes place, the age of consent is 16, not 18, with a 4 year age difference exception, or the partners are legally married at the time. Never mind the fact that it doesn't matter if the minor is male or female.
So lets not generalize, and stick the the actual laws, so that we can draw attention to the real flaws.
Those designs on The CSS Zen Garden all looked great... Then I resized my browser window.
Any page design that does not use my full browser window, and without horizontal scrolling, is anything but "gorgeous." I wouldn't even qualify it as usable.
I'm far more concerned with the nudity, violence, child-targeted advertising, mindless "culture", and raw stupidity.
I don't know about the rest of that stuff, but I too am concerned with nudity, specifically the near complete lack of nudity in American Culture. Nudity should be promoted not restricted (yes even if we don't always like what we see). And being as you listed nudity above violence in a discussion about censorship, I suggest you take a closer look at home when considering "raw stupidity."
That wouldn't make any sense. The conversion from metric to imperial is double and add 30. So 55 imperial gallons would be about 12.5 metric gallons. There for a barrel is 12.5 metric gallons. This is basic math people.
It's still completely wrong. You claimed "you don't get to control who you work with" yet in reality you do have complete control over who you work with. If you chose not to exercise that right, then that's up to you, but you still have 100% complete control. If anything we have far more control over who we work with than who we hang out with outside of work. If you had children you would understand that, but I gather by your comments, that you don't have any children and are single. Eventually you'll learn there is far more to life than work, and there is no reason to feel forced to have to deal with coworkers you don't like or respect (I say this because I know full well that most of my coworkers do not like me, but they do respect me and the work I do).
I know the rule seems stupid - and the teachers involved may agree with you - but if you go undermining their authority every time something like this comes up, the kids won't take school authority seriously.
And why should the children take school authority seriously when they are regularly showing they do not have the necessary knowledge to warrant the authority.
Yes I was one of those kids that challenged authority at every turn, and gamed the system to the point where I turned a expulsion into an early graduation. It's now many decades later and I still believe in the same thing I did then. Educators, public and private, need to realize that they are there to educate kids and provide a safe and inviting environment for learning. This means worrying about bullies, violence, true distractions. This does not mean pushing kids around, taking away their property just because the teacher doesn't like it, or any other unnecessary execution of unwarranted authority.
Chewing Mr. Zog's in class (or sucking on a Jolly Rancher as the may be) causes no harm to the education environment, so teachers should not care one little bit (just as an example).
Assuming you wouldn't use actual phrases like "shove [your] policy up [your] ass sideways" this is exactly what the parents need to do. Children need to learn that authority is not always right, and that no matter who the child is (rich, poor, white, black, male, female, what ever) they have the right and the responsibility to challenge authority when the authority is acting in ways contrary to good of humanity.
Educators in public schools work for the parents. They are paid by the parents (they are paid by taxes levied against all, but those taxes would not exist if the parents didn't push for the education of their children). They need to learn that they will be held responsible by those that ultimately determine their lively hood.
I look forward to my child entering the public school system. I hope that there is no trouble. But I am very vocal that if the school does anything I feel is inappropriate I will be voicing my opinion and escalating the issues as needed. Mind you I wouldn't call a lawyer, I would call other parents, and then the press, and anyone else that might actually be able to make a difference.
despite your protestations that it's really a badge of honor to be called one, [know it all] is almost universally considered a derogatory term
So is Arrogant and Condescending, but in my experience, my best raises and promotions were all followed by a review containing those two words. Since I stopped seeing those in my reviews I have seen much slower growth in title and compensation. From my experience, these words are all words that are used by less knowledgeable people to make themselves feel better. And yes I see, arrogant, condescending, and even asshole to be a badge of honor (can't say the same about know-it-all since I've never actually been called that, but since some people can't see the humor in my initial remark I figured validating it would be more fun than refuting it.)
People will learn that you're not someone they should take problems to, and you'll find yourself in a little corner where you can do the minimum, never talk to anyone else, and never make any progress in your career.
This is exactly the opposite of reality. In reality you don't get promoted by cleaning up after people. If you are ready and willing to always clean up after people, especially your boss, then your boss will want to keep you right where you are to keep cleaning up after them.
On the other hand I realize that all my success in life has come from my determination and not some silly rules as to how one should act at all times.
Don't be afraid to challenge your peers when your approach may be better, but know when to back down when you're out-numbered.
I would rephrase this. Backing down is never the right thing to do. If you are proven wrong then admit it and move on. If you are right, voice your opinion and let those in charge decided what to do with it. If you are the decision maker, then stand by your decisions, unless you feel proven wrong. And if you make a bad decision, then stand behind it by putting in what ever you can to correct the issues once it is proven to be a bad one.
Learn and understand your company's core values.
Make sure it's the companies actual core values, not what it says in the companies value statement. Company heads don't usually believe in the BS they sell to the employees.
If you lied on your interview, you'll be quickly found out the moment you submit your first program
If you did not lie in your interview or on your resume, then you are working a job that is below your potential. You have time after you are hired to learn any skill you claimed to already have. Now you do have to do the work and be ready to back up your lies. But listing experience in something you've only read about is fine, as long as you are ready to make a go at it once you are in the job.
Learn how to comment your code, but don't do it so much that stripping them out strips 75% of the file.
Over documentation is better than under documentation. And if you are documenting an interface, then your ration of comment to code should be well over 75% comment. On the other hand, comments should be for users of your code, not maintainers. If you find yourself having to write code for other developers that might have to maintain your application, you probably need to refractor the code to be more concise.
This may involve learning OUTSIDE of your job as well.
What you do outside your job is for you to decided. Any company that requires you to learn or do anything work related on your time is not a company you want to be working for as they do not respect your time. If you want to learn on your own time, then by all means do it, but never feel obligated to do so.
You will be required to understand the business to a degree that helps you develop useful code
This should only be true for analysts. If you are a developer and your company expects you to know the details of the business domain, it's only because they are going to expect you to do more than your share of the work, and probably have a really weak process for gathering requirements.
Innovate or get out of the way.
Only if that is your expected role. Not ever employee is there to be an innovator. Companies need grunts (code monkeys). And if you were hired to be a grunt but spend your time trying to do the innovative work, you will probably find yourself out of a job (unless you are better at the innovative work than the people currently doing it).
But most of all, keep your resume up to date (lies and all) and be constantly looking out for the next opportunity. Your company probably doesn't give a shit about you, and your best bet is to always be ready when trouble is brewing.
You spend more time with your coworkers than with your family and significant other...
Maybe you do, but those that know how to balance work and home certainly do not. I spend no more than 40 hours a week with my co workers. Actually a lot less since I work at home quite often. I also get over 5 weeks of time off in a year. So that is 1880 hours a year spent with coworkers (assuming I didn't work from home, actually only 1128ish with my working from home hours considered). There are 8760 hours in a year. So that means only abut 22% of my time is spent with co workers. The vast majority of the rest of the time I am spending time with members of my family, and the rest is with friends, or possibly alone.
The important thing is that while you can control who you hang out with after work, you don't get to control who you work with.
This is completely wrong. You have 100% control over who you work with. If you don't like the people you work with, find a new job. I am only keeping my current job because I like the people I work with. And I won't take a replacement position until I know I will like the people I will be working with.
If you're office discourages you from having some fun during the day with your coworkers then I'd look for another place to work before you burn out.
The correct way to approach this is to help people clean up their messes, just as long as they are willing to watch and listen open-mindedly as you patiently explain where they went wrong.
Though my original intent was a little tongue in cheek, this one actually is important. Cleaning up after people once, is a great way to make sure that person never needs to be responsible for their own mistakes.
When people respect you, then they will listen to your advice.
This is 100% correct, but people don't respect their tools, and by cleaning up after someone, you are just acting like a tool to be used. Most people will respect you more if they have to be in your shoes and understand the work that you do. By make people responsible for their own actions, such as the action of not listening to the advice they are given, before they make a mistake, they are more likely to respect your future decisions. By cleaning up after them instead of making them clean up their own mess, the only thing they learn is that they can keep making messes and someone will clean them up.
If you want to be successful, do good quality work, and do not get stepped on. If your boss can't take it when you stand up for yourself, the worst thing they can do is force you to take the opportunity to find a better boss.
For those that don't know, "acting like a know-it-all" is just something that less knowledgeable people like to say about us more knowledgeable people, as if they are taking some moral high ground by being less knowledgeable.
That being said, when you are first starting out, and really anytime you are talking to someone higher in your chain of command, Just point out what you know and let others make the wrong decision. Don't ever clean up after someone else when you already told them what was the right way to do something, let people deal with their own messes.
The best configuration for programmers is individual offices.
I knew someone would make this suggestion, and it is these worst possible suggest. Having separate offices does not in anyway cut down of non-work related conversations. The Developers will either use instant messaging, which takes more effort than talking, or they will get up and walk to each others offices. The real bad problem is when they actually have to work together, which is nearly constantly on any reasonably sized project. Then they have to use less efficient forms of communication or again have to spend time walking to each others offices.
Secluding Developers form the rest of he business is a good idea as it cuts down on the distractions that really do pull people away from their work. But secluding them from each other is just down right dumb.
My suggestion would be up to five developers in a single room with individual desks facing out of the center of the room with a single large conference table in the middle. Give then each a laptop with at least one additional monitor. Also encourage the use of head phones when a developer wants to seclude themselves of the rest of the group. This gives developers their own working space if they want it (you could add cube walls but I would not suggest it) and also a communal space to work together. The best part is it keeps sales and all the other riffraff out.
And most disheartening of all is that we can't write better software, outside of the FOSS world.
As much as I agree with your sentiment, you are not going to find any better quality on average in the FOSS world. Which I have never understood because there is no excuse for it in the FOSS world where there are no deadlines and no PHBs.
The ones I hate are the developers who write the shitty bug-ridden code that gets loaded onto computers that I have to support.
As a Software Engineer I want to say that I agree with you, but your anger is slightly misdirected. There are shitty developers, no doubt, but you should really be angry about the stupid Executives that ultimately hire shitty developers, or out source to shitty developers, or, as is all to common, won't let the good developers actually do their job.
The problem consumers run into is that they would rather buy software that is buggy, but out sooner, than solid software that takes a lot longer to make. When you buy software (and that includes "buying" from an internal development department) you get what you pay for. If you want Rolex quality you pay Rolex Prices.
DSL isn't as fast and doesn't come with TV so if I switched my internet to DSL my TV+internet monthly bill would be greater and I would have less bandwidth.
Supporting my original statement that there are alternatives, you just happen to prefer Cox over those alternatives. Just rubs me the wrong way when people bitch about not having options when they clearly do, and just don't like the alternatives.
Unfortunately Cox has a monopoly on cable in my hood.
If you get specific enough, every company has a monopoly on something. In this case Cox does not have a monopoly on anything substantial, since cable is just a transport medium not a good or service. They have ISP competition and they have Media competition. What they really have a monopoly on is being the best priced provided for the services you want, and that is not really a monopoly at all.
That would be my choice if Cox didn't have a complete monopoly in the city I live in (Phoenix AZ).
Interesting since I know plenty of people in Phoenix that have providers other then Cox for their internet access. But I guess you have never heard of DSL, or other alternatives to cable.
I think what you meant to say is that you would switch if there was an option you preferred over Cox. But the reality is, you have decided that losing Usenet isn't enough for you to want to switch to one of the other providers.
Fact is, there is no area of Business which Cox has no competitors, unless you narrow it down to a specific method of content delivery (a.k.a cable).
Slashdot Mirror
The verb google has already been added the new Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Merriam-Webster also says that a correct pronunciation of the word Nuclear is "nyü-, ÷-ky-lr". Go to the site and you can even listen to it being mispronounced. Just saying that I wouldn't take Merriam-Webster to be a reliable source on the english language.
It's more like if Ford made cars and tires.... and only ford approved tires would work on Ford Cars .... ..and then they told Bridgestone they could no longer make Tires for Fords ....
This is not an accurate anallogy. As I said above, this is more like Ford telling Bridgestone that they can't use their plant (iOS dev kit) to make Bridgestone tires and that they won't sell Bridgestone tires in the Ford dealerships (Apple App Store).
but neither would I expect Apple to have any control over what advertising 3 party software shows on devices once Apple have sold them(The device).
Actually Apple does not have any control over what you do with the device you bought. The do have control over what you do with the software (iOS) that you license. If you were to install another OS on your iPhone you could run what ever applications that OS supports, there is nothing legally stopping you.
But even that is not an accurate comparison to this situation. As others have pointed out all that Apple is doing here is limiting what products they are going to carry in their store and what products can be made with their licensed development kits.
So yes Ford can't stop you from putting a GM motor in your ford car, but they can stop you from using their manufacturing plant and selling it in their store.
It would be far more "economically unfeasible" if everyone would just "automatically [hang] up on them." My time is far more valuable than that of the agent on the other end of the phone. If I just hang up on them then I have no time lost and they still have to pay for their dialer (which is often a per call cost). Luckily none of that really matters to me because I only use a cell phone, and since it's still a receiver pays economic system, solicitors are in violation of the law if they call me. I haven't received a legal marketing call in over 5 years (I have received a few scam calls but your not going to stop them until people are smart enough to stop falling for it).
This is because most people do not have the courage to act with civil disobedience. Luckily there are enough people who will, and it only takes one person to challenge the law for it to undergo the scrutiny of a jury.
While I strongly support the Sherriff and the other police agencies in Arizona, corrupt officers are not unheard of,
Until Sheriff Joe is exonerated on the current Missappropriation of Funds charge, I'm quite certain there are corrupt officers.
Sorry, I just have a hard time following the logic that a person can be against police corruption yet support Maricopa county sheriff's office (which admittedly you didn't mention what county sheriff you were refering to so I might be making an assumption.)
What is your position on this issue and what can we do to prevent such onerous laws, such as they have in Massachusetts for example, from becoming law here?
First thing would be to stop voting for corrupt politicians (which in Maricopa the Sheriff is more politician than law enforcement). If people continue to elect corrupt politicians then they deserve exactly what they get.
The majority of designers with good knowledge of usability and CSS will build the design to a width of 960px wide as this allows for a usable design inside the max width of the majority of their visitors.
No designer with good knowledge would ever use the measurement of Pixels to determine a dimension displayed to a user. 960px varies in size greatly from machine to machine as a pixel is not a fixed size. 960px on a 100in projection is considerably larger than the same pixes on a smart phone. This is also not taking into account the viewing distance of the viewer.
As much as I was disturbed by the fixed maximum width, because I have a preference for much wider viewing area, or at least one I can control, I was even more disturbed by the unrealistic minimum width. A good layout will be viewable on my phone, laptop, desktop and even game console. What I saw in those examples, though very pretty, were less than optimal on all those devices.
In our society, someone who is sexually attracted to a girl one day from her eighteenth birthday is legally a pedophile
Where is this legal definition of a pedophile? I gather you are going to have a really hard time finding any proof to back up your statement. No Laws, in the United States at least, define what a pedophile is. There are also no laws in the US that regulate thought, and sexual attraction is merely a thought.
and if he acts on that attraction even with her full consent and is caught doing so he will be punished accordingly.
This is also incorrect if you are referring to the US (where this story takes place). First of all you can not be charged with a crime for sexual contact (excluding sodomy) between two fully consenting partners. The Laws you are referring to are referred to as "consent" laws for a reason. The Law states that individuals under a certain age are incapable of giving consent. Semantic difference from what you are saying, but an important distinction if we ever want to be free of unjust laws. More importantly, in the state of Pennsylvania, where the story takes place, the age of consent is 16, not 18, with a 4 year age difference exception, or the partners are legally married at the time. Never mind the fact that it doesn't matter if the minor is male or female.
So lets not generalize, and stick the the actual laws, so that we can draw attention to the real flaws.
Those designs on The CSS Zen Garden all looked great... Then I resized my browser window.
Any page design that does not use my full browser window, and without horizontal scrolling, is anything but "gorgeous." I wouldn't even qualify it as usable.
I'm far more concerned with the nudity, violence, child-targeted advertising, mindless "culture", and raw stupidity.
I don't know about the rest of that stuff, but I too am concerned with nudity, specifically the near complete lack of nudity in American Culture. Nudity should be promoted not restricted (yes even if we don't always like what we see). And being as you listed nudity above violence in a discussion about censorship, I suggest you take a closer look at home when considering "raw stupidity."
That wouldn't make any sense. The conversion from metric to imperial is double and add 30. So 55 imperial gallons would be about 12.5 metric gallons. There for a barrel is 12.5 metric gallons. This is basic math people.
It's still completely wrong. You claimed "you don't get to control who you work with" yet in reality you do have complete control over who you work with. If you chose not to exercise that right, then that's up to you, but you still have 100% complete control. If anything we have far more control over who we work with than who we hang out with outside of work. If you had children you would understand that, but I gather by your comments, that you don't have any children and are single. Eventually you'll learn there is far more to life than work, and there is no reason to feel forced to have to deal with coworkers you don't like or respect (I say this because I know full well that most of my coworkers do not like me, but they do respect me and the work I do).
I know the rule seems stupid - and the teachers involved may agree with you - but if you go undermining their authority every time something like this comes up, the kids won't take school authority seriously.
And why should the children take school authority seriously when they are regularly showing they do not have the necessary knowledge to warrant the authority.
Yes I was one of those kids that challenged authority at every turn, and gamed the system to the point where I turned a expulsion into an early graduation. It's now many decades later and I still believe in the same thing I did then. Educators, public and private, need to realize that they are there to educate kids and provide a safe and inviting environment for learning. This means worrying about bullies, violence, true distractions. This does not mean pushing kids around, taking away their property just because the teacher doesn't like it, or any other unnecessary execution of unwarranted authority.
Chewing Mr. Zog's in class (or sucking on a Jolly Rancher as the may be) causes no harm to the education environment, so teachers should not care one little bit (just as an example).
Assuming you wouldn't use actual phrases like "shove [your] policy up [your] ass sideways" this is exactly what the parents need to do. Children need to learn that authority is not always right, and that no matter who the child is (rich, poor, white, black, male, female, what ever) they have the right and the responsibility to challenge authority when the authority is acting in ways contrary to good of humanity.
Educators in public schools work for the parents. They are paid by the parents (they are paid by taxes levied against all, but those taxes would not exist if the parents didn't push for the education of their children). They need to learn that they will be held responsible by those that ultimately determine their lively hood.
I look forward to my child entering the public school system. I hope that there is no trouble. But I am very vocal that if the school does anything I feel is inappropriate I will be voicing my opinion and escalating the issues as needed. Mind you I wouldn't call a lawyer, I would call other parents, and then the press, and anyone else that might actually be able to make a difference.
despite your protestations that it's really a badge of honor to be called one, [know it all] is almost universally considered a derogatory term
So is Arrogant and Condescending, but in my experience, my best raises and promotions were all followed by a review containing those two words. Since I stopped seeing those in my reviews I have seen much slower growth in title and compensation. From my experience, these words are all words that are used by less knowledgeable people to make themselves feel better. And yes I see, arrogant, condescending, and even asshole to be a badge of honor (can't say the same about know-it-all since I've never actually been called that, but since some people can't see the humor in my initial remark I figured validating it would be more fun than refuting it.)
People will learn that you're not someone they should take problems to, and you'll find yourself in a little corner where you can do the minimum, never talk to anyone else, and never make any progress in your career.
This is exactly the opposite of reality. In reality you don't get promoted by cleaning up after people. If you are ready and willing to always clean up after people, especially your boss, then your boss will want to keep you right where you are to keep cleaning up after them.
On the other hand I realize that all my success in life has come from my determination and not some silly rules as to how one should act at all times.
Don't be afraid to challenge your peers when your approach may be better, but know when to back down when you're out-numbered.
I would rephrase this. Backing down is never the right thing to do. If you are proven wrong then admit it and move on. If you are right, voice your opinion and let those in charge decided what to do with it. If you are the decision maker, then stand by your decisions, unless you feel proven wrong. And if you make a bad decision, then stand behind it by putting in what ever you can to correct the issues once it is proven to be a bad one.
Learn and understand your company's core values.
Make sure it's the companies actual core values, not what it says in the companies value statement. Company heads don't usually believe in the BS they sell to the employees.
If you lied on your interview, you'll be quickly found out the moment you submit your first program
If you did not lie in your interview or on your resume, then you are working a job that is below your potential. You have time after you are hired to learn any skill you claimed to already have. Now you do have to do the work and be ready to back up your lies. But listing experience in something you've only read about is fine, as long as you are ready to make a go at it once you are in the job.
Learn how to comment your code, but don't do it so much that stripping them out strips 75% of the file.
Over documentation is better than under documentation. And if you are documenting an interface, then your ration of comment to code should be well over 75% comment. On the other hand, comments should be for users of your code, not maintainers. If you find yourself having to write code for other developers that might have to maintain your application, you probably need to refractor the code to be more concise.
This may involve learning OUTSIDE of your job as well.
What you do outside your job is for you to decided. Any company that requires you to learn or do anything work related on your time is not a company you want to be working for as they do not respect your time. If you want to learn on your own time, then by all means do it, but never feel obligated to do so.
You will be required to understand the business to a degree that helps you develop useful code
This should only be true for analysts. If you are a developer and your company expects you to know the details of the business domain, it's only because they are going to expect you to do more than your share of the work, and probably have a really weak process for gathering requirements.
Innovate or get out of the way.
Only if that is your expected role. Not ever employee is there to be an innovator. Companies need grunts (code monkeys). And if you were hired to be a grunt but spend your time trying to do the innovative work, you will probably find yourself out of a job (unless you are better at the innovative work than the people currently doing it).
But most of all, keep your resume up to date (lies and all) and be constantly looking out for the next opportunity. Your company probably doesn't give a shit about you, and your best bet is to always be ready when trouble is brewing.
You spend more time with your coworkers than with your family and significant other...
Maybe you do, but those that know how to balance work and home certainly do not. I spend no more than 40 hours a week with my co workers. Actually a lot less since I work at home quite often. I also get over 5 weeks of time off in a year. So that is 1880 hours a year spent with coworkers (assuming I didn't work from home, actually only 1128ish with my working from home hours considered). There are 8760 hours in a year. So that means only abut 22% of my time is spent with co workers. The vast majority of the rest of the time I am spending time with members of my family, and the rest is with friends, or possibly alone.
The important thing is that while you can control who you hang out with after work, you don't get to control who you work with.
This is completely wrong. You have 100% control over who you work with. If you don't like the people you work with, find a new job. I am only keeping my current job because I like the people I work with. And I won't take a replacement position until I know I will like the people I will be working with.
If you're office discourages you from having some fun during the day with your coworkers then I'd look for another place to work before you burn out.
Now this I actually agree with entirely.
The correct way to approach this is to help people clean up their messes, just as long as they are willing to watch and listen open-mindedly as you patiently explain where they went wrong.
Though my original intent was a little tongue in cheek, this one actually is important. Cleaning up after people once, is a great way to make sure that person never needs to be responsible for their own mistakes.
When people respect you, then they will listen to your advice.
This is 100% correct, but people don't respect their tools, and by cleaning up after someone, you are just acting like a tool to be used. Most people will respect you more if they have to be in your shoes and understand the work that you do. By make people responsible for their own actions, such as the action of not listening to the advice they are given, before they make a mistake, they are more likely to respect your future decisions. By cleaning up after them instead of making them clean up their own mess, the only thing they learn is that they can keep making messes and someone will clean them up.
If you want to be successful, do good quality work, and do not get stepped on. If your boss can't take it when you stand up for yourself, the worst thing they can do is force you to take the opportunity to find a better boss.
For those that don't know, "acting like a know-it-all" is just something that less knowledgeable people like to say about us more knowledgeable people, as if they are taking some moral high ground by being less knowledgeable.
That being said, when you are first starting out, and really anytime you are talking to someone higher in your chain of command, Just point out what you know and let others make the wrong decision. Don't ever clean up after someone else when you already told them what was the right way to do something, let people deal with their own messes.
A lot of people in AZ might set their AC to 27.77777777C
Very few people in AZ would ever set their AC to 27.77777777C. They are far more likely to set it to 82F.
The best configuration for programmers is individual offices.
I knew someone would make this suggestion, and it is these worst possible suggest. Having separate offices does not in anyway cut down of non-work related conversations. The Developers will either use instant messaging, which takes more effort than talking, or they will get up and walk to each others offices. The real bad problem is when they actually have to work together, which is nearly constantly on any reasonably sized project. Then they have to use less efficient forms of communication or again have to spend time walking to each others offices.
Secluding Developers form the rest of he business is a good idea as it cuts down on the distractions that really do pull people away from their work. But secluding them from each other is just down right dumb.
My suggestion would be up to five developers in a single room with individual desks facing out of the center of the room with a single large conference table in the middle. Give then each a laptop with at least one additional monitor. Also encourage the use of head phones when a developer wants to seclude themselves of the rest of the group. This gives developers their own working space if they want it (you could add cube walls but I would not suggest it) and also a communal space to work together. The best part is it keeps sales and all the other riffraff out.
And most disheartening of all is that we can't write better software, outside of the FOSS world.
As much as I agree with your sentiment, you are not going to find any better quality on average in the FOSS world. Which I have never understood because there is no excuse for it in the FOSS world where there are no deadlines and no PHBs.
The ones I hate are the developers who write the shitty bug-ridden code that gets loaded onto computers that I have to support.
As a Software Engineer I want to say that I agree with you, but your anger is slightly misdirected. There are shitty developers, no doubt, but you should really be angry about the stupid Executives that ultimately hire shitty developers, or out source to shitty developers, or, as is all to common, won't let the good developers actually do their job.
The problem consumers run into is that they would rather buy software that is buggy, but out sooner, than solid software that takes a lot longer to make. When you buy software (and that includes "buying" from an internal development department) you get what you pay for. If you want Rolex quality you pay Rolex Prices.
Blame it on rapid development.
DSL isn't as fast and doesn't come with TV so if I switched my internet to DSL my TV+internet monthly bill would be greater and I would have less bandwidth.
Supporting my original statement that there are alternatives, you just happen to prefer Cox over those alternatives. Just rubs me the wrong way when people bitch about not having options when they clearly do, and just don't like the alternatives.
Unfortunately Cox has a monopoly on cable in my hood.
If you get specific enough, every company has a monopoly on something. In this case Cox does not have a monopoly on anything substantial, since cable is just a transport medium not a good or service. They have ISP competition and they have Media competition. What they really have a monopoly on is being the best priced provided for the services you want, and that is not really a monopoly at all.
That would be my choice if Cox didn't have a complete monopoly in the city I live in (Phoenix AZ).
Interesting since I know plenty of people in Phoenix that have providers other then Cox for their internet access. But I guess you have never heard of DSL, or other alternatives to cable.
I think what you meant to say is that you would switch if there was an option you preferred over Cox. But the reality is, you have decided that losing Usenet isn't enough for you to want to switch to one of the other providers.
Fact is, there is no area of Business which Cox has no competitors, unless you narrow it down to a specific method of content delivery (a.k.a cable).