but i wouldn't fly on any airplanes that Joel wrote the software for
Are you sure you don't? Are you sure no one with weaker skills wrote it? Do you have any idea how many unqualified programmers are out there coding for the masses?
Didn't Joel sort of say the same thing? I guess we can all read it differently, but I surely didn't get that he "dismisses the whole of academic computer science."
I agree, tho, stay away from the hot new thing of the day... well, don't aim your whole career at it, anyway. But stay with your passion - making computers do better things for the humans. And to do that, you need some other knowledge. How are you going to know what's 'better for the humans' if you don't know too much about their world?
Yes, yes, yes! You'll all be better off in the long run (meaning, your lifetime) if you have more to offer than coding. You've got to be a good programmer, but it's as least as important to understand the business side of things. If all you want to do is code somebody else's requirements, fine. But if you think you'd like to have a say in what gets developed, you need to understand BUSINESS. Who do you think is paying you? Where do you think the money comes from? The IT/IS shop?
Do you speak English? Could you tell us which posters you agree with? Or are you now satisfied that you've 'contributed something meaningful' and have moved on?
Ooooo. You've got my interest now. Wish I could connect you and my son. Too late for both of you I guess. You'll have to succeed the old-fashioned way -- by being superior at what you do. That used to count, but I think it's less relevant these days. Good luck. I don't mean that sarcasticlly. I hope you overcome those management mindsets that say "good school, lots of classes = good employee. lesser school, acomplishments I don't understand (like starting a dot com company, developing new technology I don't understand, coding apps I never use) = not so good."
No, he didn't leave it out. He said, in essence, if you can code WELL, other people WILL understand your code and won't have to rewrite it. The point was, learn to write GOOD code. Others understanding it will follow. MOST, as in > 50%, do not learn to write GOOD code. A boss I had once said "any monkey off the street can learn to code." He was right.
What Joel left off was people should read ALL of what they're working on, not just the first 2 or 3 paragraphs. I was a programmer (COBOL, but that doesn't matter). Good programmers leave behind code that's understandable by even a mediocre programmer. The ones that don't understand it are... well, you figure it out.
OK, somebody boosted the score on this, and it doesn't deserve it. I was stooopid not to look for a FAQ. I don't agree with it now that I've seen it -- I mean, who that got mentioned here would start a legal issue over mirroring/caching their site to keep them visible? It's an honor, not a threat.
The banner ad issue is bogus too. When the site gets shut down, they're not making any money. If mirroring it can't be done with the ad link-backs intact, then they're still no worse off, right? The 'Slashdot effect' took them and their ads offline. But it does seem to me that a mirror of the site wouldn't break the ad link-backs (or whatever they're called).
I see the answers in the FAQ as a cop-out; I think the real issue is the person in charge doesn't want to go to the trouble. So I still think/. should help out. The good samaritans who DO mirror surely aren't getting sued, and the site owner isn't going to get all boiled over because a mirror or cache didn't pick up his/her latest update. So my original issue is still a valid one in my mind. I just should have done my homework first.
Anyway, I/my post doesn't (don't?) rate the score boost. Thank you, whoever did it. I appreciate it, but don't deserve it.
So... does that make me wrong??? WTF? Why don't they help out the people who are making them money? If it was Billy Gates, people would be screaming. Why is it OK for/. to cost people money, when they push people over their limit, and then not even bother to help out?
If you had a cool website that was generating $100 a month from the ad or two you had, and then someone posted a link to you here and you either had to go offline or pay for a big bandwidth increase... is it OK that Slashdot didn't even cache the pages? True, you're not going to get any more ad revenue, but couldn't they at least provide a way for the readers to see your stuff? And isn't that the point? You want your stuff seen and they want to 'find' it? Your stuff is what they're making money off. So should they be fine with costing you money yet not spending a few bucks themselves to help everyone: themselves (we'd all get to the links), the readers (we'd all see the stuff) and you (we'd all see your stuff)?
Hey! Am I the first person to wonder why Slashdot doesn't cache the stuff they link to, so that when it gets killed we can still see it? Gee, it would take someone 2 or 3 minutes to do it on a big site, 15 seconds on a single page thing. I mean,/. regularly busts people's bandwith allocation, all the while making money off the ads on the page that everyone links from. Doesn't anyone there (at/.) think it would be nice to at least spring for a $100 hard drive and cache the pages for a few days? Lots of times some reader does it knowing the site will get put offline, but why should it be up to good hearted readers? Why doesn't OSTG do it? Would that kill them? Should we take up a collection? Or am I all wet?
They're not asking for the account to be transferred to them. They just want to see the contents. I'm sure his parents don't care whether or not Yahoo! keeps the account. They just want to be able to access his account in the same way they could have had he left his password with them.
What part of that do you not understand?
(yes, 'yhoo', not 'yahoo'. Clever, huh? Keeps us from flooding her).
Let's let her know our feelings. I've read most of the thread (whew!) and I can understand those supporting Yahoo! (but not those who don't want their pr0n, etc. discovered--hey, you're dead; why do you care they'll all find out what a perv you were?). Let's make it a vote. Write Ms. Mahon and let her know what you think, what you want them to do with your stuff.
YOU'RE RIGHT!
What's the abuse address? I suppose abuse@yahoo.com, but it seems that would be so loaded all the time (b/c of spam) that our emails won't be noticed.
When I was in the service, I kept all my letters in a footlocker. If I had been killed, they would have been sent to my family, no matter what they contained. Email is today's 'letters', no different in that respect. Don't take candy from strangers, don't put into email anything you wouldn't want the world to see, all you stuff goes to the next of kin when you die. Yahoo! is just wrong on this. Sure, the family needs to prove who they are to get access, but to say they (Yahoo!) 'own' the data when you die is just wrong. And cold. And un-American. And this really pisses me off.
It's not email, but we should all send them our opinion of this. Mine is that it sucks, big time.
The page is the feedback form for 'Yahoo! Privacy'. Let them know our troops and their families deserve better than the 'privacy' and TOS crap Yahoo! is sticking out there.
You're right. Aparently only you and I actually read the article. FCC, not FAA. Per the article, the FAA is at least 2 years away from approval.
Sidenote: Ever notice that some people on the phone (any phone) talk louder the farther away they are from the other person. Normal voive to call a few offices away. Loud to call home. Screaming on long distance. And all the while, software at the telco is moderating the volume anyway.:)
I remember reading an article in about 1997 that described using a military-hardened laptop in the trunk of a car playing MP3s. I was envious. And about a year or two later, my son got a real MP3-playing stereo in his dash. Boy, I guess these authors are really onto something.:)
I got as far as Apple/iPod/iTunes is a contender. At 128kbs??? Yeah, this is an article I'm going to put my future in. I'm old and on the way out, but I still can hear how crappy 128kbs files are, no matter what the format. Somebody let me know when they write an article for people who know, or at least remember, what decent music actually sounds like. Way too funny is the BMW thingie that plays iTunes on a 75 grand (or whatever) car stereo. Are there any others out there who actually listen to the music--not just have it making noise in the background?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure you don't? Are you sure no one with weaker skills wrote it? Do you have any idea how many unqualified programmers are out there coding for the masses?
Oh, wait. You're probably one. Nevermind. Sorry
and the fallacy
Yes, yes, yes. That's the whole point. Where you can and do go to school is not as important as knowing more than how to write a Hello World program.
I agree, tho, stay away from the hot new thing of the day... well, don't aim your whole career at it, anyway. But stay with your passion - making computers do better things for the humans. And to do that, you need some other knowledge. How are you going to know what's 'better for the humans' if you don't know too much about their world?
Yes, yes, yes! You'll all be better off in the long run (meaning, your lifetime) if you have more to offer than coding. You've got to be a good programmer, but it's as least as important to understand the business side of things. If all you want to do is code somebody else's requirements, fine. But if you think you'd like to have a say in what gets developed, you need to understand BUSINESS. Who do you think is paying you? Where do you think the money comes from? The IT/IS shop?
Do you speak English? Could you tell us which posters you agree with? Or are you now satisfied that you've 'contributed something meaningful' and have moved on?
Ooooo. You've got my interest now. Wish I could connect you and my son. Too late for both of you I guess. You'll have to succeed the old-fashioned way -- by being superior at what you do. That used to count, but I think it's less relevant these days. Good luck. I don't mean that sarcasticlly. I hope you overcome those management mindsets that say "good school, lots of classes = good employee. lesser school, acomplishments I don't understand (like starting a dot com company, developing new technology I don't understand, coding apps I never use) = not so good."
What Joel left off was people should read ALL of what they're working on, not just the first 2 or 3 paragraphs. I was a programmer (COBOL, but that doesn't matter). Good programmers leave behind code that's understandable by even a mediocre programmer. The ones that don't understand it are... well, you figure it out.
something like us: humans
I see the answers in the FAQ as a cop-out; I think the real issue is the person in charge doesn't want to go to the trouble. So I still think /. should help out. The good samaritans who DO mirror surely aren't getting sued, and the site owner isn't going to get all boiled over because a mirror or cache didn't pick up his/her latest update. So my original issue is still a valid one in my mind. I just should have done my homework first.
Anyway, I/my post doesn't (don't?) rate the score boost. Thank you, whoever did it. I appreciate it, but don't deserve it.
Boy, that was insightful.
So... does that make me wrong??? WTF? Why don't they help out the people who are making them money? If it was Billy Gates, people would be screaming. Why is it OK for /. to cost people money, when they push people over their limit, and then not even bother to help out?
If you had a cool website that was generating $100 a month from the ad or two you had, and then someone posted a link to you here and you either had to go offline or pay for a big bandwidth increase... is it OK that Slashdot didn't even cache the pages? True, you're not going to get any more ad revenue, but couldn't they at least provide a way for the readers to see your stuff? And isn't that the point? You want your stuff seen and they want to 'find' it? Your stuff is what they're making money off. So should they be fine with costing you money yet not spending a few bucks themselves to help everyone: themselves (we'd all get to the links), the readers (we'd all see the stuff) and you (we'd all see your stuff)?
Hey! Am I the first person to wonder why Slashdot doesn't cache the stuff they link to, so that when it gets killed we can still see it? Gee, it would take someone 2 or 3 minutes to do it on a big site, 15 seconds on a single page thing. I mean, /. regularly busts people's bandwith allocation, all the while making money off the ads on the page that everyone links from. Doesn't anyone there (at /.) think it would be nice to at least spring for a $100 hard drive and cache the pages for a few days? Lots of times some reader does it knowing the site will get put offline, but why should it be up to good hearted readers? Why doesn't OSTG do it? Would that kill them? Should we take up a collection? Or am I all wet?
They're not asking for the account to be transferred to them. They just want to see the contents. I'm sure his parents don't care whether or not Yahoo! keeps the account. They just want to be able to access his account in the same way they could have had he left his password with them. What part of that do you not understand?
http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/ReleaseDetail.c fm?&ReleaseID=148239
(yes, 'yhoo', not 'yahoo'. Clever, huh? Keeps us from flooding her).
Let's let her know our feelings. I've read most of the thread (whew!) and I can understand those supporting Yahoo! (but not those who don't want their pr0n, etc. discovered--hey, you're dead; why do you care they'll all find out what a perv you were?). Let's make it a vote. Write Ms. Mahon and let her know what you think, what you want them to do with your stuff.
YOU'RE RIGHT! What's the abuse address? I suppose abuse@yahoo.com, but it seems that would be so loaded all the time (b/c of spam) that our emails won't be noticed.
And they're not going to look at your computer when you go? Uh-huh.
When I was in the service, I kept all my letters in a footlocker. If I had been killed, they would have been sent to my family, no matter what they contained. Email is today's 'letters', no different in that respect. Don't take candy from strangers, don't put into email anything you wouldn't want the world to see, all you stuff goes to the next of kin when you die. Yahoo! is just wrong on this. Sure, the family needs to prove who they are to get access, but to say they (Yahoo!) 'own' the data when you die is just wrong. And cold. And un-American. And this really pisses me off.
It's not email, but we should all send them our opinion of this. Mine is that it sucks, big time. The page is the feedback form for 'Yahoo! Privacy'. Let them know our troops and their families deserve better than the 'privacy' and TOS crap Yahoo! is sticking out there.
You'd likely change your mind if you read the article...
They aren't aimed straight up. They're directed along the ground.
Oops. Voice. I don't know anything about their voives. :)
You're right. Aparently only you and I actually read the article. FCC, not FAA. Per the article, the FAA is at least 2 years away from approval. Sidenote: Ever notice that some people on the phone (any phone) talk louder the farther away they are from the other person. Normal voive to call a few offices away. Loud to call home. Screaming on long distance. And all the while, software at the telco is moderating the volume anyway. :)
I remember reading an article in about 1997 that described using a military-hardened laptop in the trunk of a car playing MP3s. I was envious. And about a year or two later, my son got a real MP3-playing stereo in his dash. Boy, I guess these authors are really onto something. :)
I got as far as Apple/iPod/iTunes is a contender. At 128kbs??? Yeah, this is an article I'm going to put my future in. I'm old and on the way out, but I still can hear how crappy 128kbs files are, no matter what the format. Somebody let me know when they write an article for people who know, or at least remember, what decent music actually sounds like. Way too funny is the BMW thingie that plays iTunes on a 75 grand (or whatever) car stereo. Are there any others out there who actually listen to the music--not just have it making noise in the background?