That is the worst part -- I am a consumate geek. This means I don't want to be anyone's boss really. I just want to do cool things with cool technology. And I would like to be paid relative the fact I am quite good at it.
So my career aspiration is do more of what I do now, but to have a little more control on the technical issues in those cases where I really am the most qualified to make the descision. I have no problem deferring to someone else when they really are better or more informed mind you. But someone who hasn't written a line of code in ten years and only knows about the project what he hears in design review meetings just doesn't qualify that way.
OTOH I am working as a consultant now, which means I most always keep the politics and the on-site developers needs in mind. And accept that I might know more about the technology but they almost certainly know more about their business. This is something else I can do and it does pay better. If only it was more consistant.
Why no salary difference -- Re:Look.
on
Software Craftsmanship
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Your breakdown into three programmer types is nothing new. It is widely documented that out of a group of ten programmers two will be as productive as the other eight put together. So why aren't these 'star performers' treated (and paid) like the stars they are?
One reason is because the people making the money descisions are under the illusion that software is not a create industry. They think it is 'Engineering' in the sense that anyone who can add the numbers can do it. But if that was true than we would already have self-programming computers. Seen one recently? When was the last time you actually used a '4GL' in a real-world scenario? Not a good example maybe; that doesn't really qualify as self-programming anyway. More like 'canned programming'.
Nonetheless, take a close look at those people who are 'really good' programmers. In my experience you will often find they are also musicians or skilled at some other creative endeavor in a much higher percentage than the average public. This tells me that one of the things it takes to be a top programmer is the same thing it takes to be a great guitar player -- innate talent. Either you have it or you don't. And if you don't have 'it' no amount of schooling will make you more than adequate.
But that leads to the second reason why you don't see the salary difference: Good programmers are often not seen as team players. They tend to be 'Prima Donnas'. They get angry when people don't listen to them as they go against the political grain in an attempt to do something the 'right' way. In other words they usually just aren't as likeable as the 'other eight'. And the fact that events usually prove the star programmer was right all along only leads to more friction.
The third reason for the salary difference is just plain silly: Performance reviews. I have yet to see a supervisor who was comfortable giving a star performer a star review; something on which a significant salary raise might be predicated. But without the good review the raise doesn't happen.
This might be because the supervisor is acting on personal feelings "She is good, but she has been difficult to work with this year." It might be because the supervisor feels uncomfortable giving extreme reviews in either direction. It might be because the supervisor fears that the star performer will be promoted away (or worse, over them) if it were clear how good they are. And I am sure a hundred other reasons as well.
I certainly know how hard it is to show up with a good attitude every day knowing that only the quality of your code is the difference between you and Joe Schmuck, who can't program his way out of a paper bag. But even more than the money I just want them to start LISTENING TO ME! I can't tell you how many times I have been hired as an expensive consultant, given them my professional opinion and then watched them do it the wrong way anyway. Over and over. Always smacking into the very same brick walls I warned them about.
So, if you are a supervisor for programmers I hope you take this rant to heart. You might also want to take my handy test: 'You might be a PHB if . ..'
Well said, and you would get an 'Insightful' mod if I had one.
But you did forget one thing; to this day almost all advances in pure math are made by single people working alone. Often after years of thinking about a single problem to the exclusion of everything else (including food and hygene).
There are some tinfoil hat qualities to your rant. For example I doubt that "every economist, capitalist and politician" is lying because no conspiracy with than many people in it could survive. As they say; two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.
But, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean no-one is out to get out. Personally I wonder just how much the system itself encourages people to make such claims even when the data doesn't support it. In other words the problem isn't conspiracy, but rather an emergent behavior engedered by the rules of the system.
I thought the whole deal about patents was that there were supposed to encourage companies to invest in research because they could expect a payoff. And didn't I read somewhere recently that patent applications are up?
So which is it? Is real innovation down because of a screwed up patent system? Or because of a lack of money? Or just hubris on the part of US companies that think they know the one true way for everything?
Personally I do believe innovation is suffering right now. And I don't think the patent system is helping. Instead companies are pumping out patents on everything old under the sun while few are spending money on something truly new.
Why? The reality of innovation is that new things are almost always built on old foundations. When those foundations might have 2,000 different patents the incentive to try new combinations of things is reduced because you don't want the hassle of infringement. Or at least it seems that way to me. Your mileage may vary...
People have been thinking about his quite seriously for quite a while now. The possibilities go beyond even what you mention. For example, imagine (AI + VR) as an art form disconnected from plot. In one of my SF stories I had a throw-away scene where one of the characters is using a simulation of a trout stream, where you sit with a fishing pole but never catch anything, as a way to calm down.
Plus people are going the other way as well, using game engines to create movies. Check out http://www.machinima.com and http://www.machinima.org or this Wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,5 3929,00.ht ml
Get a clue from RH, and change the format to what people want and make money from that.
Uh... But RH isn't making money. The story is about how they are going out of business. But ABC news is still in business. Therefore you are full of stinky stuff; QED...
You could just not go to their update site. Then they wouldn't have your information, or you could relize that they are just using this info for marketting purposes or possibly to send you drivers for your new netgear wireless or what not.
All true, but I would rather game the system. Wouldn't you?
And I should be surprised why? Also, a suggestion.
on
Examining Microsoft Update
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Although I often semi-sorta-half-hearted-defend Microsoft when people make unsupported categorical statements or otherwise speak mindlessly, I am also willing to speak out against them when they are wrong. As in this instance.
I would have to do some research, but I believe this might violate their own privacy policy. Even if it doesn't, they really have no moral right to send any information about your system without letting you know what it is and giving you a chance to abort the whole thing. Yet I am unsurprised, in fact I expect every big company is doing this kind of thing when they can get away with it.
Not that I am saying "Everyone is doing it, so what is the big deal?" My attitude is more "Let's stop this crap now!"
So I have a suggestion -- someone should start an open source project to create a re-writing proxy for updates that strips out all the stuff Microsoft is sending in the updates, except what is absolutely needed. Make it open enough that we can plug it re-writers for other companies as well.
So far as I know it is a pretty standard aircraft-style system: A hydralic actuator pushes down the gear hinges, which is hinged at the top and connected via a hinged arm to the gear bay covers. The gear bay covers are two parts, each hinged at the side, which open as the gear comes down. Once the whole thing is down another actuator pushes down a collar that locks the gear in that position.
I am from Seattle and I can tell you that is pretty much how both major papers there treat Boeing, Microsoft and other big employers in the area. (Actually they are a little meaner to Boeing since the company bailed on Seattle for their corporate headquarters.) When you carry a big chunk of the local economy you get the VIP treatment just about everywhere.
I suspect many other large cities with a few big companies work the same.
Re:Check out the animation I did of the sensor dat
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
Thanks! It was a lot of work, but I think worth it.
Check out the animation I did of the sensor data
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 5, Informative
My, admittedly amateur, conclusion is that one of the carbon shields located on the front of the wing (right ahead of the wheel well) failed for some reason. Check out the animation page to see why I say this.
Some of what you say seems to be different interpretations of the same material. But I can't argue with this part:
This is not exactly the first time that Microsoft has tried to avoid court remedies to their illegal acts or contract violations by arguing that the remedy would put an undue burden on the public (aka Microsoft customers). If Microsoft customers are "burdened" by the remedy then it is Microsoft's fault for having violating the law or contract in the first place. I certainly hope it is Microsoft who is forced to pay and not the SQL developers.
My understanding was that Timeline was making broader assertions about the applicability of the patents than were true, thus frightening many Microsoft customers who are not affected by the patent infringement case. That would be FUD by my understanding of that TLA.
Do you know of something different, or are you just attacking me in hopes of starting a flame war? I would certainly appreciate any links you have to the actual statements made by Timeline.
After reading the article it seems clear that Microsoft's worst mistake lay in taking the legal route (attacking Timeline) instead of resolving the issue with new licensing when it had the chance.
So, basically the problem is Microsoft hubris; first they signed a crap contract, then they refused to negotiate a better one. But Timeline seems to have ego (and truthfullness) problems of its own; spreading FUD among MS customers in a kind of 'good for the goose, good for the gander' approach. So this looks like a situation where there are no heros and Timeline may be the only winner.
I wonder what long term effect this will have on MS SQL Server sales? The funny part is, this only directly affects a small number of developers modifying SQL Server in very specific ways. But the marketplace often operates on emotion rather than rational principles and this tarnish on the MS crown may have significant ripple effects.
C) Your feature doesn't make it into the build tonight.
Believe me, at any large shop doing a big project, the last thing you want to do is break the build. I would rather miss a meeting than break the build...
I guess that is a point, and a very interesting one at that. But MS is losing money on the XBox right now. I know they will invest fairly long term in some space they want a part of (MSN), but I am not sure how long they would continue the process without some payback. I am going to think about this carefully for a while.
My point is that Palladium is not a shipping technology. Based on past behavior, for Microsoft to talk about it in the way they are right now means that they are testing the waters. In this case the correct response is to show Microsoft that it can cost them marketshare.
Yet to do this you must show a minimum of rational thought. All too often what I see (and remember) are responses which show the person in question is using slogans in place of such rational thought. In many ways the parent post fits that mold.
Proposition (1): Microsoft is not evil, it is amoral and self-interested. There is a difference in intent, if not in result.
Proposition (2): Reflexive sloganeering didn't stop Macrovision, DMCA, et al. The greatest danger from Palladium is not that it will be shoved down people's throats by Microsoft, but rather it (or something like it) will be required by law (the government does the shoving).
Proposition (3): Given proposition (1) and (2) I would argue that Microsoft will drop the whole concept if you can show them, rationally, that it has little chance of succeeding in the marketplace. But they (and the rest of the world) will ignore you if you wrap your arguments in shrill accusations and conspiracy theories.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the worst part -- I am a consumate geek. This means I don't want to be anyone's boss really. I just want to do cool things with cool technology. And I would like to be paid relative the fact I am quite good at it.
So my career aspiration is do more of what I do now, but to have a little more control on the technical issues in those cases where I really am the most qualified to make the descision. I have no problem deferring to someone else when they really are better or more informed mind you. But someone who hasn't written a line of code in ten years and only knows about the project what he hears in design review meetings just doesn't qualify that way.
OTOH I am working as a consultant now, which means I most always keep the politics and the on-site developers needs in mind. And accept that I might know more about the technology but they almost certainly know more about their business. This is something else I can do and it does pay better. If only it was more consistant.
Your breakdown into three programmer types is nothing new. It is widely documented that out of a group of ten programmers two will be as productive as the other eight put together. So why aren't these 'star performers' treated (and paid) like the stars they are?
.'
One reason is because the people making the money descisions are under the illusion that software is not a create industry. They think it is 'Engineering' in the sense that anyone who can add the numbers can do it. But if that was true than we would already have self-programming computers. Seen one recently? When was the last time you actually used a '4GL' in a real-world scenario? Not a good example maybe; that doesn't really qualify as self-programming anyway. More like 'canned programming'.
Nonetheless, take a close look at those people who are 'really good' programmers. In my experience you will often find they are also musicians or skilled at some other creative endeavor in a much higher percentage than the average public. This tells me that one of the things it takes to be a top programmer is the same thing it takes to be a great guitar player -- innate talent. Either you have it or you don't. And if you don't have 'it' no amount of schooling will make you more than adequate.
But that leads to the second reason why you don't see the salary difference: Good programmers are often not seen as team players. They tend to be 'Prima Donnas'. They get angry when people don't listen to them as they go against the political grain in an attempt to do something the 'right' way. In other words they usually just aren't as likeable as the 'other eight'. And the fact that events usually prove the star programmer was right all along only leads to more friction.
The third reason for the salary difference is just plain silly: Performance reviews. I have yet to see a supervisor who was comfortable giving a star performer a star review; something on which a significant salary raise might be predicated. But without the good review the raise doesn't happen.
This might be because the supervisor is acting on personal feelings "She is good, but she has been difficult to work with this year." It might be because the supervisor feels uncomfortable giving extreme reviews in either direction. It might be because the supervisor fears that the star performer will be promoted away (or worse, over them) if it were clear how good they are. And I am sure a hundred other reasons as well.
I certainly know how hard it is to show up with a good attitude every day knowing that only the quality of your code is the difference between you and Joe Schmuck, who can't program his way out of a paper bag. But even more than the money I just want them to start LISTENING TO ME! I can't tell you how many times I have been hired as an expensive consultant, given them my professional opinion and then watched them do it the wrong way anyway. Over and over. Always smacking into the very same brick walls I warned them about.
So, if you are a supervisor for programmers I hope you take this rant to heart. You might also want to take my handy test: 'You might be a PHB if . .
Read my /. journal entry on how to get an RSS feed for your /. journal.
Well said, and you would get an 'Insightful' mod if I had one.
But you did forget one thing; to this day almost all advances in pure math are made by single people working alone. Often after years of thinking about a single problem to the exclusion of everything else (including food and hygene).
"The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test..."
There are some tinfoil hat qualities to your rant. For example I doubt that "every economist, capitalist and politician" is lying because no conspiracy with than many people in it could survive. As they say; two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.
But, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean no-one is out to get out. Personally I wonder just how much the system itself encourages people to make such claims even when the data doesn't support it. In other words the problem isn't conspiracy, but rather an emergent behavior engedered by the rules of the system.
I thought the whole deal about patents was that there were supposed to encourage companies to invest in research because they could expect a payoff. And didn't I read somewhere recently that patent applications are up?
So which is it? Is real innovation down because of a screwed up patent system? Or because of a lack of money? Or just hubris on the part of US companies that think they know the one true way for everything?
Personally I do believe innovation is suffering right now. And I don't think the patent system is helping. Instead companies are pumping out patents on everything old under the sun while few are spending money on something truly new.
Why? The reality of innovation is that new things are almost always built on old foundations. When those foundations might have 2,000 different patents the incentive to try new combinations of things is reduced because you don't want the hassle of infringement. Or at least it seems that way to me. Your mileage may vary...
People have been thinking about his quite seriously for quite a while now. The possibilities go beyond even what you mention. For example, imagine (AI + VR) as an art form disconnected from plot. In one of my SF stories I had a throw-away scene where one of the characters is using a simulation of a trout stream, where you sit with a fishing pole but never catch anything, as a way to calm down.
5 3929,00.ht ml
Plus people are going the other way as well, using game engines to create movies. Check out http://www.machinima.com and http://www.machinima.org or this Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,
Heh.
Uh... But RH isn't making money. The story is about how they are going out of business. But ABC news is still in business. Therefore you are full of stinky stuff; QED...
Oh, I get it! O'Reilly. Animals. Safari.
Heh.
True. And I have far more ideas than I have time to do anything about them --.meaning that I lots of what you call 'just that'.
And if I had some time, first thing I would do is move my blog off of my Slashdot journal. It isn't like I don't have a server of my own...
Hmm... Should have phrased it more carefully to avoid the flamage...
Two reasons: (1) Don't have the time. (2) It isn't an itch that I need to scratch right now.
I was only offering what I saw as an interesting suggestion for a way to fix Microsoft's (and others) boats on this. Your mileage may vary.
Oh, and just to keep the flamage going, you suck and your little dog too.
All true, but I would rather game the system. Wouldn't you?
Although I often semi-sorta-half-hearted-defend Microsoft when people make unsupported categorical statements or otherwise speak mindlessly, I am also willing to speak out against them when they are wrong. As in this instance.
I would have to do some research, but I believe this might violate their own privacy policy. Even if it doesn't, they really have no moral right to send any information about your system without letting you know what it is and giving you a chance to abort the whole thing. Yet I am unsurprised, in fact I expect every big company is doing this kind of thing when they can get away with it.
Not that I am saying "Everyone is doing it, so what is the big deal?" My attitude is more "Let's stop this crap now!"
So I have a suggestion -- someone should start an open source project to create a re-writing proxy for updates that strips out all the stuff Microsoft is sending in the updates, except what is absolutely needed. Make it open enough that we can plug it re-writers for other companies as well.
So far as I know it is a pretty standard aircraft-style system: A hydralic actuator pushes down the gear hinges, which is hinged at the top and connected via a hinged arm to the gear bay covers. The gear bay covers are two parts, each hinged at the side, which open as the gear comes down. Once the whole thing is down another actuator pushes down a collar that locks the gear in that position.
I am from Seattle and I can tell you that is pretty much how both major papers there treat Boeing, Microsoft and other big employers in the area. (Actually they are a little meaner to Boeing since the company bailed on Seattle for their corporate headquarters.) When you carry a big chunk of the local economy you get the VIP treatment just about everywhere.
I suspect many other large cities with a few big companies work the same.
Thanks! It was a lot of work, but I think worth it.
I did my own this animation of the shuttle sensor data found on the NASA page here. I have a /. journal entry for it here.
My, admittedly amateur, conclusion is that one of the carbon shields located on the front of the wing (right ahead of the wheel well) failed for some reason. Check out the animation page to see why I say this.
My understanding was that Timeline was making broader assertions about the applicability of the patents than were true, thus frightening many Microsoft customers who are not affected by the patent infringement case. That would be FUD by my understanding of that TLA.
Do you know of something different, or are you just attacking me in hopes of starting a flame war? I would certainly appreciate any links you have to the actual statements made by Timeline.
After reading the article it seems clear that Microsoft's worst mistake lay in taking the legal route (attacking Timeline) instead of resolving the issue with new licensing when it had the chance.
So, basically the problem is Microsoft hubris; first they signed a crap contract, then they refused to negotiate a better one. But Timeline seems to have ego (and truthfullness) problems of its own; spreading FUD among MS customers in a kind of 'good for the goose, good for the gander' approach. So this looks like a situation where there are no heros and Timeline may be the only winner.
I wonder what long term effect this will have on MS SQL Server sales? The funny part is, this only directly affects a small number of developers modifying SQL Server in very specific ways. But the marketplace often operates on emotion rather than rational principles and this tarnish on the MS crown may have significant ripple effects.
Sorry, the answer is:
C) Your feature doesn't make it into the build tonight.
Believe me, at any large shop doing a big project, the last thing you want to do is break the build. I would rather miss a meeting than break the build...
Hmm...
I guess that is a point, and a very interesting one at that. But MS is losing money on the XBox right now. I know they will invest fairly long term in some space they want a part of (MSN), but I am not sure how long they would continue the process without some payback. I am going to think about this carefully for a while.
At least I can honestly say I am XBox-free...
My point is that Palladium is not a shipping technology. Based on past behavior, for Microsoft to talk about it in the way they are right now means that they are testing the waters. In this case the correct response is to show Microsoft that it can cost them marketshare.
Yet to do this you must show a minimum of rational thought. All too often what I see (and remember) are responses which show the person in question is using slogans in place of such rational thought. In many ways the parent post fits that mold.
Proposition (1): Microsoft is not evil, it is amoral and self-interested. There is a difference in intent, if not in result.
Proposition (2): Reflexive sloganeering didn't stop Macrovision, DMCA, et al. The greatest danger from Palladium is not that it will be shoved down people's throats by Microsoft, but rather it (or something like it) will be required by law (the government does the shoving).
Proposition (3): Given proposition (1) and (2) I would argue that Microsoft will drop the whole concept if you can show them, rationally, that it has little chance of succeeding in the marketplace. But they (and the rest of the world) will ignore you if you wrap your arguments in shrill accusations and conspiracy theories.