Would you be alright, then, if your boss came up to you tomorrow and told you that you would only be paid for 35 of the 40 hours you work each week?
Seems to me that the gov't came up to me on the very first day I ever worked and declared I would only get paid for about 25 of the 40 hours I work each week, and that they would take the rest. What's your point, other than that bad analogies make bad arguments?
FWIW, the show the "Dynomiiiiiiiiiiite!" guy was on ("Good Times") was a spinoff of "Maude" (the mother, Florida, was Maude's maid), and "Maude" itself was a another spinoff of "All in the Family" (Maude being Edith Bunker's cousin, I believe).
If you're hiring, and you're serious about bringing in quality talent, rather than another warm body, you should take these observations to heart.
While I agree wholeheartedly with this, my concern is that so much of the IT industry is turning to the point where they truly only want "warm bodies" vs. "quality talent".
It is my opinion that "quality talent" is what makes good software. Even if we're not talking about "superstars" (lord knows I'm not one), the things that make a development project succeed are largely intangible; interpersonal relations, good development processes, few ego conflicts, and people who are clever, creative, and adaptable. these people will become your "superstars" just by becoming the experts in the good work they've done.
The problem is, especially at the larger corporations, that management is very uncomfortable with in-house "superstar". The more that crucial areas of their business structure become dependent on a single person's expertise, the more that person becomes a threat of either demanding more money, or leaving with your precious business process knowledge.
The last large corp I worked was frantically trying to implement an MSF-based development framework, the purported benefits being faster, cheaper development with fewer critical issues. The more I read about their excessive pigeonholing of roles and endless layers of process cycles, I came to the conclusion that they were not trying to make their development any cheaper or faster or more reliable. Rather, the idea was to make it so that as long as you threw *some warm body/bodies* into any given role, and they could do any kind of mediocre job at it, that they wouldn't *need* to rely on expertise that could walk out the door at any time. Maybe this is personal, but much of what I've seen with outsourcing/offshoring reinforces this in my mind.
Is it any surprise? Our political and business leaders have been teaching us more and more all that the path to success is scumbaggery. Lie, chisel, and cheat; and as long as you are powerful enough to get away with it, you will be richly rewarded. Honor, ethics, and good reputation are quaintly outmoded concepts, and those who cling to such silly traditions are in a race to be the last sucker.
The problem is not that people will attempt such venality to get ahead; this has always been the case. The problem is that, increasingly IMHO, the rest of us let them get away with this crap with their reputations intact.
Actually "thousands of kilograms" would be "megagrams", but we generally call them "tonnes".
And from there it goes to kilotonnes and megatonnes, then I believe a thousand megatonnes is then commonly called a "shiteload" or, in the US, a "fuckload".
[66% of broadband users report driving an average of 102 fewer miles per month] tells us nothing.
If there's anything this world really needs in terms of education, it would be mandatory education on how to separate legitimate statistics from bullshit. Anytime someone presents a "statistic" in the form of "A% of Bs are C more/less likely to D", in the absence of any fuller explanation about the 100 - A%, it is almost certainly bullshit.
The worst part of the age-old "lies, damned lies, and statistics" meme is that statistics really do have great value, but only if one can capably interpret them, and unfortunately those skills seem to be sorely lacking among the general public and worse, among the journalists who blindly cite them.
Maybe it would have been more obvious if he licked his balls instead.
Re:Too many 'this stuff sucks' moments
on
The Future of XML
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Too bad I used up all my mod points earlier...this post deserves a +1 Insightful.
I was just a neophyte developer when XML first surfaced in buzzword bingo, but it was the beginning of my realization of how to recognize a "Kool-aid" technology: if the people who espouse a technology can not give you a simple explanation of what it is and why it's good, they are probably "drinking the "Kool-aid".
Unfortunately, I also have since discovered the unsettling corollary: you will have it forced down your throat anyway.
Like it or not, if your resume lists your e-mail as HotPartyChick69@aol.com it's going to color the reviewers interpretation of your resume as well as lead them to make assumptions about you.
As well it should...who wants to hire an AOL user?
The problem is not learning the syntax and basic idioms. -snip-
The problem (and the time sink) is the *ugly* side of every language. -snip- The language features that have secret, illogical gotchas for special cases. The bugs in the compiler or interpreter that are easy to avoid -- once you've been burned once.
This is worthy of a mod +5 - Wish I Said It Myself. It bears repeating. Syntax can learned in a few hours, figuring out the quirks can last you a lifetime.
That was the eye-popping part to me as well. I really had no idea their cash reserves were being so heavily depleted.
Which kind of goes against the bullish argument that they have no debt and large cash reserves, doesn't it? If they've burned through $40 billion of reserves in 3 years, if they do the same over the next 3 years they be around $20 billion in debt. At that level of finance, is there any real difference between burning through $40 billion of reserves vs. taking on $40 billion in debt?
One thing I noticed in TFA is that he immediately jumps from DRM-free music to giving away all music for free, which I don't think is necessarily inevitable.
Think about this...it's been something like 7-8 years since the original Napster appeared. What if, instead of the ensuing stonewalling and lawsuits and legislative attmepts to roll back technology, the recording industry had simply created easy-to-use and DRM-free pay-for-download sites? What if they had spent their efforts and resources creating a new music distribution model that served the customers instead of reactionary tactics that had earned them nothing but bad will from consumers? Would they still lose out on sales to piracy via DRM-free media copying? Certainly. But perhaps, had they not destroyed whatever shreds of consumer good will they had, and could honestly say "Look, we gave you, the consumers, the most convenient music distribution system you've ever seen, so we ask you on the honor system not to redistribute our content or swap it with others for free", they might not be facing a customer base that largely considers them scum and would just as soon see them cut out of the picture altogether.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe everyone will freeload forever without DRM...but I can't help but think that since 8+ years since "mp3" entered the lexicon that piracy is *still* the most convenient form of digital content distribution, that perhaps the only reason why everything that they do "just digs them deeper" is that they have quite simply fully and completely alienated their customer base.
For C++ code, Doxygen can be useful, as it shows the class inheritance. As requested, it uses a (rudimentary) parser. It works with several other languages too, although I can't vouch for its utility for them.
Another suggestion I would make, if this is business app and runs atop a SQL database, start by looking at the database schema. Maybe it's just the way my brain works, but to me it is easier to start wrapping your head around the basic architecture of a system from the database schema than from diving into the application code.
When facing a similar situation in my current job, where neither the code nor the database had any useful documentation, I found a saving grace in SchemaSpy. The documentation isn't that great and it took me half a day to get it to work, but it produces a nicely diagrammed schema in HTML that was my base reference while I was deciphering the system.
In most cases, drug testing is done at the behest of the Company's worker's comp. insurance carrier - and has nothing to do with performance, productivity, or whether or not the drug is illegal.
Right, because most of the companies who test for illegal drug use also test for alcohol use. Oh wait, no, they don't.
Actually, from what I've read, the largest driver of drug testing by employers is if they have any contracts with the US gov't, which generally requires that any contractors implement drug testing. Insurance carriers may certainly play a role...but I've also read where actuarial research has failed to prove any cost benefit to drug testing, which is one of the reasons why drug testing is not as widespread as it was 15 years ago.
Why wasn't it unfair when the photocopier made copying sheet music trivial? When the cassette tape made coping vinyl records trivial?
Well, for one reason, both of those things invented prior to the 1976 Copyright Act, when copyright was still 28 years plus the option of a single 28 year extension. That and the subsequent changes to the laws have made copyright far more unfair to the public since then (terms of life of creator plus 75 years, and no prohibition of new legislation extending terms after the fact), regardless of the nature of technology.
Another reason is that those technologies were not crippled to prevent these things, so people using them for fair use reasons were not restricted in any way. (Not that the content industry didn't try to squash these technologies even then.) The fact that they have mandated at least some DRM on newer technologies *and* DMCA has made it illegal to circumvent DRM even for legal fair use purposes makes the situation much more unfair than when photocopiers and cassette recorders became available.
While what you say is true, it should be pointed out that the term "hemp" is sometimes used for fibers other that cannabis. From Webster's:
2: a fiber (as jute) from a plant other than the true hemp; also : a plant yielding such fiber
Now, of course, the fact that this definition uses the phrase "true hemp" indicates that referring to other fibers as hemp is in some sense a misusage, but nonetheless it exists. I only point this out because I had this argument with someone before.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that the gov't came up to me on the very first day I ever worked and declared I would only get paid for about 25 of the 40 hours I work each week, and that they would take the rest. What's your point, other than that bad analogies make bad arguments?
FWIW, the show the "Dynomiiiiiiiiiiite!" guy was on ("Good Times") was a spinoff of "Maude" (the mother, Florida, was Maude's maid), and "Maude" itself was a another spinoff of "All in the Family" (Maude being Edith Bunker's cousin, I believe).
While I agree wholeheartedly with this, my concern is that so much of the IT industry is turning to the point where they truly only want "warm bodies" vs. "quality talent".
It is my opinion that "quality talent" is what makes good software. Even if we're not talking about "superstars" (lord knows I'm not one), the things that make a development project succeed are largely intangible; interpersonal relations, good development processes, few ego conflicts, and people who are clever, creative, and adaptable. these people will become your "superstars" just by becoming the experts in the good work they've done.
The problem is, especially at the larger corporations, that management is very uncomfortable with in-house "superstar". The more that crucial areas of their business structure become dependent on a single person's expertise, the more that person becomes a threat of either demanding more money, or leaving with your precious business process knowledge.
The last large corp I worked was frantically trying to implement an MSF-based development framework, the purported benefits being faster, cheaper development with fewer critical issues. The more I read about their excessive pigeonholing of roles and endless layers of process cycles, I came to the conclusion that they were not trying to make their development any cheaper or faster or more reliable. Rather, the idea was to make it so that as long as you threw *some warm body/bodies* into any given role, and they could do any kind of mediocre job at it, that they wouldn't *need* to rely on expertise that could walk out the door at any time. Maybe this is personal, but much of what I've seen with outsourcing/offshoring reinforces this in my mind.
...or else you'll find yourself trudging across the tundra, mile after mile, until you reach the parish of St. Alfonzo...
Is it any surprise? Our political and business leaders have been teaching us more and more all that the path to success is scumbaggery. Lie, chisel, and cheat; and as long as you are powerful enough to get away with it, you will be richly rewarded. Honor, ethics, and good reputation are quaintly outmoded concepts, and those who cling to such silly traditions are in a race to be the last sucker.
The problem is not that people will attempt such venality to get ahead; this has always been the case. The problem is that, increasingly IMHO, the rest of us let them get away with this crap with their reputations intact.
And from there it goes to kilotonnes and megatonnes, then I believe a thousand megatonnes is then commonly called a "shiteload" or, in the US, a "fuckload".
But does it run Linux?
If there's anything this world really needs in terms of education, it would be mandatory education on how to separate legitimate statistics from bullshit. Anytime someone presents a "statistic" in the form of "A% of Bs are C more/less likely to D", in the absence of any fuller explanation about the 100 - A%, it is almost certainly bullshit.
The worst part of the age-old "lies, damned lies, and statistics" meme is that statistics really do have great value, but only if one can capably interpret them, and unfortunately those skills seem to be sorely lacking among the general public and worse, among the journalists who blindly cite them.
Too bad I used up all my mod points earlier...this post deserves a +1 Insightful.
I was just a neophyte developer when XML first surfaced in buzzword bingo, but it was the beginning of my realization of how to recognize a "Kool-aid" technology: if the people who espouse a technology can not give you a simple explanation of what it is and why it's good, they are probably "drinking the "Kool-aid".
Unfortunately, I also have since discovered the unsettling corollary: you will have it forced down your throat anyway.
As well it should...who wants to hire an AOL user?
This is worthy of a mod +5 - Wish I Said It Myself. It bears repeating. Syntax can learned in a few hours, figuring out the quirks can last you a lifetime.
That was the eye-popping part to me as well. I really had no idea their cash reserves were being so heavily depleted.
Which kind of goes against the bullish argument that they have no debt and large cash reserves, doesn't it? If they've burned through $40 billion of reserves in 3 years, if they do the same over the next 3 years they be around $20 billion in debt. At that level of finance, is there any real difference between burning through $40 billion of reserves vs. taking on $40 billion in debt?
Well, have you seen the co workers? I've had a least a few co workers whom I could do with no "ewww".
I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding here. Gates is to give this speech in Davos, which is in the German-speaking part of Switzerland.
"Kinder" means "children" in German.
So it may just be that his "kinder capitalism" may be more along the lines of A Modest Proposal.
One thing I noticed in TFA is that he immediately jumps from DRM-free music to giving away all music for free, which I don't think is necessarily inevitable.
Think about this...it's been something like 7-8 years since the original Napster appeared. What if, instead of the ensuing stonewalling and lawsuits and legislative attmepts to roll back technology, the recording industry had simply created easy-to-use and DRM-free pay-for-download sites? What if they had spent their efforts and resources creating a new music distribution model that served the customers instead of reactionary tactics that had earned them nothing but bad will from consumers? Would they still lose out on sales to piracy via DRM-free media copying? Certainly. But perhaps, had they not destroyed whatever shreds of consumer good will they had, and could honestly say "Look, we gave you, the consumers, the most convenient music distribution system you've ever seen, so we ask you on the honor system not to redistribute our content or swap it with others for free", they might not be facing a customer base that largely considers them scum and would just as soon see them cut out of the picture altogether.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe everyone will freeload forever without DRM...but I can't help but think that since 8+ years since "mp3" entered the lexicon that piracy is *still* the most convenient form of digital content distribution, that perhaps the only reason why everything that they do "just digs them deeper" is that they have quite simply fully and completely alienated their customer base.
Another suggestion I would make, if this is business app and runs atop a SQL database, start by looking at the database schema. Maybe it's just the way my brain works, but to me it is easier to start wrapping your head around the basic architecture of a system from the database schema than from diving into the application code.
When facing a similar situation in my current job, where neither the code nor the database had any useful documentation, I found a saving grace in SchemaSpy. The documentation isn't that great and it took me half a day to get it to work, but it produces a nicely diagrammed schema in HTML that was my base reference while I was deciphering the system.
This is no place for loafers. Join me or die.
Right, because most of the companies who test for illegal drug use also test for alcohol use. Oh wait, no, they don't.
Actually, from what I've read, the largest driver of drug testing by employers is if they have any contracts with the US gov't, which generally requires that any contractors implement drug testing. Insurance carriers may certainly play a role...but I've also read where actuarial research has failed to prove any cost benefit to drug testing, which is one of the reasons why drug testing is not as widespread as it was 15 years ago.
Well, for one reason, both of those things invented prior to the 1976 Copyright Act, when copyright was still 28 years plus the option of a single 28 year extension. That and the subsequent changes to the laws have made copyright far more unfair to the public since then (terms of life of creator plus 75 years, and no prohibition of new legislation extending terms after the fact), regardless of the nature of technology.
Another reason is that those technologies were not crippled to prevent these things, so people using them for fair use reasons were not restricted in any way. (Not that the content industry didn't try to squash these technologies even then.) The fact that they have mandated at least some DRM on newer technologies *and* DMCA has made it illegal to circumvent DRM even for legal fair use purposes makes the situation much more unfair than when photocopiers and cassette recorders became available.
While what you say is true, it should be pointed out that the term "hemp" is sometimes used for fibers other that cannabis. From Webster's:
2: a fiber (as jute) from a plant other than the true hemp; also : a plant yielding such fiber
Now, of course, the fact that this definition uses the phrase "true hemp" indicates that referring to other fibers as hemp is in some sense a misusage, but nonetheless it exists. I only point this out because I had this argument with someone before.
It is better to do nothing at no cost to no effect than to do something at some cost to no (and quite possibly adverse) effect.
Here's one: Stop allowing yourself to be terrorized.
Well, Cheney did say we'd be greeted as liberators. However, I believe he misspoke and meant to say we'd be greeted as obliterators.
Yeah, I have a hard time keeping away from the eggnog, too.