OTH, Obama had a great deal less money than either of these, and he was not only not out of money, but had a plan for afterwards. It says a lot about the man vs. the other 2. Not sure what you're saying. His plan is to borrow some from someone else - China perhaps?
...or is your point something to do with his plans being divorced from his budget? ...or he never gives up? ...or he thinks ahead? ...or he's optimistic (money will come from somewhere)?
I'm assuming his plan was something other than 'stop'.
Place the mouse cursor over the status bar. Press the mouse button. Move the mouse. Note that the window does not move. Now try placing the mouse cursor over some empty space on the toolbar. Press the mouse button. Move the mouse. Note that the window still does not move.
Repeat this experiment with every other application in the Applications folder, like iTunes, Safari, iCal, Address Book, iPhoto, and Font Book. Note that you can drag all of them from any place on the window that looks like brushed metal. Indeed, you are quite correct. I have never tried to drag a window by anything other than the top window bar.
Sounds like you have a valid complaint, though it's one I don't personally hit. I wonder if this works on other platforms - I regularly use MS Windows and Gnome on X11 - which would be why I never try it.
I hate other aspects of Aqua that are supposedly considered 'correct'. Please correct me if I'm wrong... For example, you can only resize a window using the bottom right of the window, and don't get me started on the brain-dead 'single-menu-at-the-top-of-the-screen' thing - if you use many different windows on different parts of a big screen, it's just plain irritating to have to move the pointer all the way up to the top just to access the menu (even worse if you have multiple screens)....but that's an different discussion.
hrmph. surely they only need to break into one of them.
note that we're talking about stealing your identity here, not your money (though I guess that is likely to be the ultimate objective). Once they have your identity, they can likely open an account of their (or your) own - likely a credit account, of course - at some other institution.
> Either way everyone gets a better browser. Win-win.
Then the number of FF users will drop, making them less significant to content producers so they target IE more and more. Then Microsoft will think they are the standard and stop further IE development, letting it sit stagnant for years on end while the general populous gradually realise how much they're being screwed, meanwhile FF has shrunk to insignificance/etc/etc.
Sounds like a viscous cycle; one that can only be broken by people not either not bothering to use IE at all even if it does get better, or Microsoft changing it's colours and keeping up development/etc/etc. I know which one I'd have money on, if I were a betting man.
Of course, there's a "secret option number 'c'", which is Microsoft don't bundle their browser on their OS so that there's a level playing field on which to complete. You can stop laughing now.
Well, it's nothing like that for *my* phone, which is running S60 - and I'm sure it's similar for UIQ and some others too. It's possible to get apps signed as freeware, or you can pay something like $20 to have it signed.
I suggest you choose to buy phones you can install s/w on yourself, and where you aren't directly involved in the signing process (like I said, that's part of the development process). The Nokia N95 seems to be quite popular, and even the Nokia 6120 Classi (which is much cheaper) is well thought of (there's a newer version with Wifi, but I forget the model number).
I'm confused. I'm not sure who 'they' is/are, but I had no problem getting my app signed (apart from a few bugs/etc). Furthermore, my app is not required to be on any catalogue. I don't have to sell it at all, if I don't want.
Probably much lighter than aluminum, for the same strength.
The question I have is, how strong could it be for the same weight? Off to rtfa... Yeah, an obvious omission from the summary. This is all I could get from a cursory look at the fa :
" It's the light weight of carbon nanotube wires--only about 20 percent of the weight of the same volume of copper wire--that could make them especially attractive for the aerospace industry. "
but that's in a discussion of using them for wires...can't be bothered to look more closely.
Signing is part of the development process and has nothing to do with end users. The applications also need designing, coding, testing, and so on...not sure I get your point.
It's not clear to me if it is 'fake' or not. To me 'fake' is where someone buys one item and copies it many times and sells the copies. The second reference in TFA (which could well be completely unrelated) implies this stuff could be the real thing, same production line/etc (perhaps QA is lower or something, since the Chinese don't want to pay for such high quality). I wonder why they don't put on a different series of serial numbers so they can easily tell which ones are not for the US market (unless they are indeed intended for the USA black market).
"A great deal of Cisco manufacturing is now done overseas, specifically in China. Cisco made a decision a decade ago to manufacture product in China as a way of cutting production costs. What has happened is that many of the companies that do the outsourcing for Cisco now run an extra shift and sell the now counterfeit hardware out the back door. After all, they have the manufacturing capability, the expertise and the full blessing of Cisco. The result? More and more counterfeit Cisco hardware is now showing up on American shores. Part of the problem is that China does not have strong intellectual property protection laws. This is a situation that Cisco and many other companies are still struggling to solve and one that does not promise to be resolved soon."
The problem isn't that the factory is making and selling extra 'out the back door' at much less than the profit Cisco would charge. This is no problem because the 'out the back door' market can't afford Cisco's prices anyway, and they get their equipment into the market where people get used to it (and eventually pay real prices - same old story; similar to Microsoft).
The problem is that the same equipment is making it to the USA where Cisco can charge their enormous markup that they need in order to pay their enormous US development costs (read:salaries).
I'm thinking this is a common problem with different markets. It reminds me of the reason for the DVD region code - they want to be able to sell DVDs at different prices in different markets (so that they can maximise sales) and yet prevent other people making a profit by buying them in cheaper markets and selling them in more expensive markets.
So, the problem IS NOT the Chinese, but the people who do the importing, who seem to be US citizens.
The fact that this is from China is not the point, even if it is (sounds likely, IMO). That it *is fake* is the point - who cares where it comes from, apart from some xenophobic, er, xenophobes?
From TFA[1] - note the names involved - Todd Richard, Michael Edman, Robert Edman.
Sound Chinese to *you*??? Didn't think so.
When *in* China, in my experience, fake electronics is openly admitted as fake. They don't mind you buying the real stuff, but it'll cost more and take longer to get. That some foreigners have taken that same fake stuff and sold it as real is not China's fault - and I don't suppose they care either.
[1] From TFA:
On Feb. 14, *Todd Richard*, 33, was sentenced to 36 months in prison and ordered to pay $208,440 in restitution to Cisco by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. From late 2003 to early 2007, Richard imported shipments of counterfeit Cisco computer components from China, and separate shipments of counterfeit Cisco labels. He then affixed the fake labels to the fake components and sold the products on eBay, the DOJ said.
Richard sold more $1 million worth of counterfeit Cisco products, the DOJ said.
On Jan. 4, a grand jury in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas indicted *Michael Edman*, 36, and his brother *Robert Edman*, 28, for trafficking in counterfeit Cisco products. The indictment alleges that the Edmans purchased and imported the counterfeit computer network hardware from an individual in China, then selling the products to retailers across the U.S. The Edmans shipped some of the counterfeit hardware directly to the U.S. Marine Corps, Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration, FBI, defense contractors, universities and financial institutions, according to the indictment. These organizations had purchased the product from a computer retailer serving as a middleman, which in turn purchased the products from the Edmans.
Ah, thanks for that. Makes Clinton sound stupid or petty, or something, IMO.
I mean, if she's going to force someone to use a specific word, it would seem like she should make sure that person didn't want to, else they just end up agreeing with each other, which is really something that totally inappropriate in a debate.
It's a two way thing; meaning that *you* are also dependent on them. So, when they make decisions you don't like, you feel justified in stomping all over their country (and even a few other unrelated ones too/instead)?
I wonder how long before the USA will become communist due to their over-dependence on communist countries.
(No, I don't really think that, but it's food for thought).
Actually, I'm quite familiar with X, but when I read the post, I didn't read it to mean 'X Windows', 'X Window', or 'OS X'. I thought it just meant, "insert something here", like a wildcard in the sentence or something - kind of like, Mr X.
I've heard some stories about Google, for example, that make me think that they could do with people who actually just 'get on with it' - ie not everyone has to be 'a superstar'.
Perhaps it falls down to the interviewers.
I think it does, yes. That's a good point. Some of the interviewers I've had do focus on method more than memory, so to speak, and that's got to be a good thing, and also some have a knack for making an interviewee more comfortable which, for me, is done by being more interactive.
One interviewer I had was particularly quiet, and, after a while of attempting to solve some problem he'd given me, I asked if this was the sort of thing he was after, he said, "Some people don't like it when you ask that. Some people *really* don't like it." It seemed to me like he thought I was trying to cheat or something. It seemed he forgot that an interview isn't purely about the company assessing the candidate, but also the candidate assessing the company - ie it didn't give me a good impression of the sort of people who work there.
On the other hand, I had another who was very good and encouraged me to explain what I was thinking/doing when I was coming up with some algorithm or other - he was the one at the end of the process too.
I'm not just talking about Google either. I mean the attraction with Google (for me) isn't the pay or the people, or even the environment (though that's not at all bad, it seems); no, for me, it's the interesting projects. The people would vary depending on the projects you work on - same is true of anywhere. These same interview problems are true of other companies too, even those that don't really have anything much to offer.
I applied for Google a few months ago, had a few intensive interviews, and nothing they asked for required any memorization beyond things that I would call "general CS knowhow".
I guess that's true to some extent, but even *that* hugely biases those with Computer *Science* training, and *recent* computer science training too. Note that most of their positions are advertised as *engineering* positions and that's different to being a scientist. On a telephone interview, they were keen on me knowing algorithms such as this big-oh stuff. All well and good, and I had done my research so predicted they'd be asking me about that. I had no formal training in that (they didn't teach me that at school), but I read up on it, listened/watched some of the Berkeley classes they have online (very interesting/useful) and was able to answer all the interview questions correctly. However, I felt obliged to point out to him that I had only memorised the facts over the past week, and had no formal training - to not do so would be like lieing to him (IMO).
Didn't get any offers though, can't say I'm not bitter about it but really I'm pretty impressed by their recruitment process, demanding as it may be. The only place where I think I tripped up was where my brain wasn't working that morning and was half asleep, and memorizing every single manual on Earth wouldn't have helped me.
Yes, that was a problem for me too. My telephone interviews were either early in the morning, or late at night (time zone problems), and I had some jet lag for the ones I had on site (it's actually surprisingly tough doing 4 or 5 interviews in a row).
I didn't have any brain freeze problem, but if I don't know something I'll admit it - I have no problem in having a go, but if it's outside my area of expertise, I don't see much point in trying something when I don't have access to the resources I would in a real situation. For example, I had to do some MySQL tasks at work recently. I've not done any MySQL so I went online and learned about it, and learned by asking (and answering) questions on the MySQL newbee forum. What value would there be in asking me to figure out a MySQL problem during an interview? No one has asked me that, but it's the same sort of thing.
you can also use the 32-bit version on 64-bit linux, which is what I do - though the poster seems to suggest he's not doing that, so I'd be interested in the clarification too....
> I have to say that I've had some people hired away from me to go to Google, and they have been hiring the people who can quote chapter and verse of some coding standards doc.
I've noticed this too in my own interviews with them (no they didn't hire me). Their interviews seem to largely test for people who can a) remember stuff, and b) think on their feet in high pressure situations (like interviews). They seem to completely ignore previous experience, references, and other stuff. Being able to perform well in an interview is often not a good reflection of a person's potential.
On more than one occasion, I told the interviewer/screener that I didn't know the answer to a question and they proceeded to ask if it were "a" or "b" where it was so obvious that only one of them could be correct (ie "a" = !"b"). Them telling me the answer to their question is disingenuous and I had already said I didn't know so they should take that as my answer - I felt like they were asking me to cheat.
In many cases, the answer to a question could be found out in a couple of seconds by looking it up in the manual - or a web search (knowing how to find answers is still a skill). Those of us not still in our 20s have learned to select what we remember and forget what we can easily find out again when necessary. One of the principle things we remember is what problems various technologies can be used to solve, and so we can build systems using different technologies in order to solve bigger problems. We learn how to learn new things. We build intuition not a database.
Selecting only specialists with good memories and high confidence under pressure is fair enough, if those are the sort of people you want (ie they remember all the nitty gritty details of all the technologies they've worked on), but I wonder what it would be like in a company full of such people. I've heard some stories about Google, for example, that make me think that they could do with people who actually just 'get on with it' - ie not everyone has to be 'a superstar'.
Why do companies want people like this? Are these people 'superprogrammers'? Do they actually get work done in real life?
What about people who have demonstrated that they can solve problems by selecting from, learning, and using various technologies that are available? People who are engineers rather than programmers.
Also, do companies only want specialists these days? Is there no place for a generalist? It seems to me that generalists are quite valuable for startups and small companies, but large companies want teams of specialists, with each a specialist in a particular area. I the larger companies, I guess a generalist might be a reasonable manager or system designer, with the specialists doing the bits of the system they are specialist in...or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because their cost of living, and thus production, is much lower than in the US doesn't mean they can only make junk.
I'm assuming his plan was something other than 'stop'.
Repeat this experiment with every other application in the Applications folder, like iTunes, Safari, iCal, Address Book, iPhoto, and Font Book. Note that you can drag all of them from any place on the window that looks like brushed metal. Indeed, you are quite correct. I have never tried to drag a window by anything other than the top window bar.
Sounds like you have a valid complaint, though it's one I don't personally hit. I wonder if this works on other platforms - I regularly use MS Windows and Gnome on X11 - which would be why I never try it.
I hate other aspects of Aqua that are supposedly considered 'correct'. Please correct me if I'm wrong... For example, you can only resize a window using the bottom right of the window, and don't get me started on the brain-dead 'single-menu-at-the-top-of-the-screen' thing - if you use many different windows on different parts of a big screen, it's just plain irritating to have to move the pointer all the way up to the top just to access the menu (even worse if you have multiple screens).
hrmph. surely they only need to break into one of them.
note that we're talking about stealing your identity here, not your money (though I guess that is likely to be the ultimate objective). Once they have your identity, they can likely open an account of their (or your) own - likely a credit account, of course - at some other institution.
perhaps I missed something...
> Either way everyone gets a better browser. Win-win.
Then the number of FF users will drop, making them less significant to content producers so they target IE more and more. Then Microsoft will think they are the standard and stop further IE development, letting it sit stagnant for years on end while the general populous gradually realise how much they're being screwed, meanwhile FF has shrunk to insignificance/etc/etc.
Sounds like a viscous cycle; one that can only be broken by people not either not bothering to use IE at all even if it does get better, or Microsoft changing it's colours and keeping up development/etc/etc. I know which one I'd have money on, if I were a betting man.
Of course, there's a "secret option number 'c'", which is Microsoft don't bundle their browser on their OS so that there's a level playing field on which to complete. You can stop laughing now.
I've been using the same version of FF for a while now too. I can drag it's window around w/o any problem. Did I misunderstand your complaint?
I 'never' use Safari, and don't consider my Mac 'broken' (any more than it usually is).
Well, it's nothing like that for *my* phone, which is running S60 - and I'm sure it's similar for UIQ and some others too. It's possible to get apps signed as freeware, or you can pay something like $20 to have it signed.
I suggest you choose to buy phones you can install s/w on yourself, and where you aren't directly involved in the signing process (like I said, that's part of the development process). The Nokia N95 seems to be quite popular, and even the Nokia 6120 Classi (which is much cheaper) is well thought of (there's a newer version with Wifi, but I forget the model number).
I'm confused. I'm not sure who 'they' is/are, but I had no problem getting my app signed (apart from a few bugs/etc). Furthermore, my app is not required to be on any catalogue. I don't have to sell it at all, if I don't want.
Am I missing something?
why would mozilla not be able to get their apps signed? Even I can do that.
The question I have is, how strong could it be for the same weight? Off to rtfa... Yeah, an obvious omission from the summary. This is all I could get from a cursory look at the fa :
"
It's the light weight of carbon nanotube wires--only about 20 percent of the weight of the same volume of copper wire--that could make them especially attractive for the aerospace industry.
"
but that's in a discussion of using them for wires...can't be bothered to look more closely.
Signing is part of the development process and has nothing to do with end users. The applications also need designing, coding, testing, and so on...not sure I get your point.
It's not clear to me if it is 'fake' or not. To me 'fake' is where someone buys one item and copies it many times and sells the copies. The second reference in TFA (which could well be completely unrelated) implies this stuff could be the real thing, same production line/etc (perhaps QA is lower or something, since the Chinese don't want to pay for such high quality). I wonder why they don't put on a different series of serial numbers so they can easily tell which ones are not for the US market (unless they are indeed intended for the USA black market).
"A great deal of Cisco manufacturing is now done overseas, specifically in China. Cisco made a decision a decade ago to manufacture product in China as a way of cutting production costs. What has happened is that many of the companies that do the outsourcing for Cisco now run an extra shift and sell the now counterfeit hardware out the back door. After all, they have the manufacturing capability, the expertise and the full blessing of Cisco. The result? More and more counterfeit Cisco hardware is now showing up on American shores. Part of the problem is that China does not have strong intellectual property protection laws. This is a situation that Cisco and many other companies are still struggling to solve and one that does not promise to be resolved soon."
The problem isn't that the factory is making and selling extra 'out the back door' at much less than the profit Cisco would charge. This is no problem because the 'out the back door' market can't afford Cisco's prices anyway, and they get their equipment into the market where people get used to it (and eventually pay real prices - same old story; similar to Microsoft).
The problem is that the same equipment is making it to the USA where Cisco can charge their enormous markup that they need in order to pay their enormous US development costs (read:salaries).
I'm thinking this is a common problem with different markets. It reminds me of the reason for the DVD region code - they want to be able to sell DVDs at different prices in different markets (so that they can maximise sales) and yet prevent other people making a profit by buying them in cheaper markets and selling them in more expensive markets.
So, the problem IS NOT the Chinese, but the people who do the importing, who seem to be US citizens.
Right!
The fact that this is from China is not the point, even if it is (sounds likely, IMO). That it *is fake* is the point - who cares where it comes from, apart from some xenophobic, er, xenophobes?
From TFA[1] - note the names involved - Todd Richard, Michael Edman, Robert Edman.
Sound Chinese to *you*??? Didn't think so.
When *in* China, in my experience, fake electronics is openly admitted as fake. They don't mind you buying the real stuff, but it'll cost more and take longer to get. That some foreigners have taken that same fake stuff and sold it as real is not China's fault - and I don't suppose they care either.
[1] From TFA:
On Feb. 14, *Todd Richard*, 33, was sentenced to 36 months in prison and ordered to pay $208,440 in restitution to Cisco by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. From late 2003 to early 2007, Richard imported shipments of counterfeit Cisco computer components from China, and separate shipments of counterfeit Cisco labels. He then affixed the fake labels to the fake components and sold the products on eBay, the DOJ said.
Richard sold more $1 million worth of counterfeit Cisco products, the DOJ said.
On Jan. 4, a grand jury in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas indicted *Michael Edman*, 36, and his brother *Robert Edman*, 28, for trafficking in counterfeit Cisco products. The indictment alleges that the Edmans purchased and imported the counterfeit computer network hardware from an individual in China, then selling the products to retailers across the U.S. The Edmans shipped some of the counterfeit hardware directly to the U.S. Marine Corps, Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration, FBI, defense contractors, universities and financial institutions, according to the indictment. These organizations had purchased the product from a computer retailer serving as a middleman, which in turn purchased the products from the Edmans.
> Do you have telecommuting opportunities?
According to recent reports, there may be several Chinese working remotely already.
Ah, thanks for that. Makes Clinton sound stupid or petty, or something, IMO.
I mean, if she's going to force someone to use a specific word, it would seem like she should make sure that person didn't want to, else they just end up agreeing with each other, which is really something that totally inappropriate in a debate.
...and that wasn't an 'ex-or' either, in case anyone was wondering.
> it makes them interdependent
You can't have unilateral interdependency.
It's a two way thing; meaning that *you* are also dependent on them. So, when they make decisions you don't like, you feel justified in stomping all over their country (and even a few other unrelated ones too/instead)?
I wonder how long before the USA will become communist due to their over-dependence on communist countries.
(No, I don't really think that, but it's food for thought).
I don't get this joke. I assume it's some kind of joke.
It sounds a lot like pressie bush, but the topic is a bit above his normal level, iinm.
care to enlighten those of us not 'in' on the joke.
tnx.
Actually, I'm quite familiar with X, but when I read the post, I didn't read it to mean 'X Windows', 'X Window', or 'OS X'. I thought it just meant, "insert something here", like a wildcard in the sentence or something - kind of like, Mr X.
I've heard some stories about Google, for example, that make me think that they could do with people who actually just 'get on with it' - ie not everyone has to be 'a superstar'.
Perhaps it falls down to the interviewers.
I think it does, yes. That's a good point. Some of the interviewers I've had do focus on method more than memory, so to speak, and that's got to be a good thing, and also some have a knack for making an interviewee more comfortable which, for me, is done by being more interactive.
One interviewer I had was particularly quiet, and, after a while of attempting to solve some problem he'd given me, I asked if this was the sort of thing he was after, he said, "Some people don't like it when you ask that. Some people *really* don't like it." It seemed to me like he thought I was trying to cheat or something. It seemed he forgot that an interview isn't purely about the company assessing the candidate, but also the candidate assessing the company - ie it didn't give me a good impression of the sort of people who work there.
On the other hand, I had another who was very good and encouraged me to explain what I was thinking/doing when I was coming up with some algorithm or other - he was the one at the end of the process too.
I'm not just talking about Google either. I mean the attraction with Google (for me) isn't the pay or the people, or even the environment (though that's not at all bad, it seems); no, for me, it's the interesting projects. The people would vary depending on the projects you work on - same is true of anywhere. These same interview problems are true of other companies too, even those that don't really have anything much to offer.
I applied for Google a few months ago, had a few intensive interviews, and nothing they asked for required any memorization beyond things that I would call "general CS knowhow".
I guess that's true to some extent, but even *that* hugely biases those with Computer *Science* training, and *recent* computer science training too. Note that most of their positions are advertised as *engineering* positions and that's different to being a scientist. On a telephone interview, they were keen on me knowing algorithms such as this big-oh stuff. All well and good, and I had done my research so predicted they'd be asking me about that. I had no formal training in that (they didn't teach me that at school), but I read up on it, listened/watched some of the Berkeley classes they have online (very interesting/useful) and was able to answer all the interview questions correctly. However, I felt obliged to point out to him that I had only memorised the facts over the past week, and had no formal training - to not do so would be like lieing to him (IMO).
Didn't get any offers though, can't say I'm not bitter about it but really I'm pretty impressed by their recruitment process, demanding as it may be. The only place where I think I tripped up was where my brain wasn't working that morning and was half asleep, and memorizing every single manual on Earth wouldn't have helped me.
Yes, that was a problem for me too. My telephone interviews were either early in the morning, or late at night (time zone problems), and I had some jet lag for the ones I had on site (it's actually surprisingly tough doing 4 or 5 interviews in a row).
I didn't have any brain freeze problem, but if I don't know something I'll admit it - I have no problem in having a go, but if it's outside my area of expertise, I don't see much point in trying something when I don't have access to the resources I would in a real situation. For example, I had to do some MySQL tasks at work recently. I've not done any MySQL so I went online and learned about it, and learned by asking (and answering) questions on the MySQL newbee forum. What value would there be in asking me to figure out a MySQL problem during an interview? No one has asked me that, but it's the same sort of thing.
Pickin
So, this spacecraft is going to be built by Apple? Funny name. I don't predict a good future for it.
you can also use the 32-bit version on 64-bit linux, which is what I do - though the poster seems to suggest he's not doing that, so I'd be interested in the clarification too....
...I suspect our brain tries to do shortcuts... What? Are we 'the borg' now?> I have to say that I've had some people hired away from me to go to Google, and they have been hiring the people who can quote chapter and verse of some coding standards doc.
I've noticed this too in my own interviews with them (no they didn't hire me). Their interviews seem to largely test for people who can a) remember stuff, and b) think on their feet in high pressure situations (like interviews). They seem to completely ignore previous experience, references, and other stuff. Being able to perform well in an interview is often not a good reflection of a person's potential.
On more than one occasion, I told the interviewer/screener that I didn't know the answer to a question and they proceeded to ask if it were "a" or "b" where it was so obvious that only one of them could be correct (ie "a" = !"b"). Them telling me the answer to their question is disingenuous and I had already said I didn't know so they should take that as my answer - I felt like they were asking me to cheat.
In many cases, the answer to a question could be found out in a couple of seconds by looking it up in the manual - or a web search (knowing how to find answers is still a skill). Those of us not still in our 20s have learned to select what we remember and forget what we can easily find out again when necessary. One of the principle things we remember is what problems various technologies can be used to solve, and so we can build systems using different technologies in order to solve bigger problems. We learn how to learn new things. We build intuition not a database.
Selecting only specialists with good memories and high confidence under pressure is fair enough, if those are the sort of people you want (ie they remember all the nitty gritty details of all the technologies they've worked on), but I wonder what it would be like in a company full of such people. I've heard some stories about Google, for example, that make me think that they could do with people who actually just 'get on with it' - ie not everyone has to be 'a superstar'.
Why do companies want people like this? Are these people 'superprogrammers'? Do they actually get work done in real life?
What about people who have demonstrated that they can solve problems by selecting from, learning, and using various technologies that are available? People who are engineers rather than programmers.
Also, do companies only want specialists these days? Is there no place for a generalist? It seems to me that generalists are quite valuable for startups and small companies, but large companies want teams of specialists, with each a specialist in a particular area. I the larger companies, I guess a generalist might be a reasonable manager or system designer, with the specialists doing the bits of the system they are specialist in...or something.
http://www.eol.org/home.html
Actually, it's not so much.