Actually if you paid attention, he did the ridiculous stage name change due to a legal battle with WB - you can find detail here
My own tastes run towards classic rock, classical, and metal that has an actual melody (not sure if there's a genre for that). That doesn't prevent me from recognizing and enjoying ability - if not genius - in other genres.
There's a surprising number of people who will classify entire genres of music as crap without considering that talented musicians can make an appearance anywhere. (Example: Prince. Once of the most versatile and talented musicians around today - largely disdained because his music is "pop" ). The funny part is that the same people will listen with steadfast determination to their own chosen genres, apparently deaf to the fact that the ratio of crap to talent is the same there as well.
There will come a point where - if enough attention is consistently drawn to their actions - various government entities will actually take notice and feel compelled to act.
But you eat more of what, presumably, doesn't taste good? So you've "moderated" your life by doing something unpleasant?
Absolutely not. That's how "diets" fail - I eat the same crappy food I always do. I supplement it with a higher ratio of things that are healthier -- which is absolutely not the same thing as saying I'm doing something unpleasant. (salted squash, zucchini, onion, tomato sauteed in a bit of olive to go with 1 or 2 pieces of my fried or bbq chicken, as opposed to just having 3-4 [or more] pieces of the chicken.). Most nights I'll even have regular-fat ice cream or a can of soda for dessert.
If anyone here actually knew how metabolism works actually put "health" into an evolutionary context, you'd realize the absurdity of low fat diets,
They are absurd, which is why I don't recommend it. Anything that is "low" X or "carb free" or any of the other fads -- aside from the dubious scientific value of it -- involves a mindset of "temporary change to lose some weight", and that is [imo] what leads to failure more than anything else.
What you can only do it set yourself up in a position that is not promoting inflammation and pathology. You can only provide the internal and external environment in which your regulatory systems work (read: entire body). You can't do the regulation for them.
I'll take your word for that as I lack the background to say one way or the other. What I *can* say is that by making relatively minor lifestyle changes, I've managed to lose and keep off a significant amount of weight without feeling like I'm depriving myself of anything (except feeling "full").
Talk to us in a year, let us know if you've kept it off. I've known a lot of people who lost weight on low-carb diets -- and none who kept it off. Naturally this is anecdotal, but I"d be interested to know if you turn out to be the the exception in my experience. I'd also be interested in knowing how the diet has affected your cholesterol levels.
I've lost over 50 lbs (and have kept it off for over a year now).. It took me about eight months . The "secret" is simple -- eat less. Exercise more.
The first: I don't mean starve yourself, or even significantly changing what you eat: six days out of seven, don't eat until you're "full". Increase the ratio of vegetables to everything else. That's pretty much it. (And it doesn't take long before you realize that the comfortable "full" feeling that was part of daily eating habits is actually pretty unpleasant,. )
The second: not talking about killing yourself at the gym here, or riding 10 miles a day. Just walk 1-2 miles, three-four days a week (five is even better) Or do anything that gets you out of breath for an equivalent amount of time (20-40 minutes).
.
I still enjoy the occasional pizza and meal out (about 1-2 times a week). I still make food that' tastes good,and isn't always the healthiest. I just eat less of it.
hey look to buy stuff to save money in the long run, not some gee whiz tech being hyped as the next cool thing
This is dangerously similar to the logic which says "It's on sale, so it's OK!" If you don't need it to begin with, in no way can purchasing it be justified as a savings -- present or future.
y pie-in-the-sky idea is a micromirror array, fed by three-colour lasers, that'll illuminate the eye's pupil with the correct pattern for each eye, with tracking of the pupil locations.
According to TFA, the insurance company covered it. Admittedly the cost will filter down into the premiums, but the taxpayer didn't take a significant hit here (although as another post points out, hiring morons has a financial cost, and this is just an example of that).
That's another problem. There's this tendency to think that because "insurance covers it", there's no real cost.
Thanks for the reply - assuming you are who you say you are, what you say is not surprising (though perhaps a bit disappointing). I am American, as you surmised. My impression is gathered from observation, and informal conversation with Indian coworkers here locally. Though of course, none who work for TCS (or InfoSys, or Cognizant -- all suffer similar issues from an outsider's perspective) are comfortable revealing specifics about their employer.
One area I tend to focus on in interviews is the day-to-day. I try to get someone to describe a problem they solved last week, or detail the design of a system they recently completed.
Very often this causes stumbling as you pointed out - as real-world experience isn't something that be faked as easily as book knowledge.
Glad to hear that you've moved on from TCS. Hopefully you're in the category of programmers who "gets it"* -- it sounds like you may be.
I don't really blame TCS either - they've found a model that works; and for some reason, clients find this level of service acceptable. I just wish these clients would occasionally look at the *long term* cost of using these firms. The hourly numbers look great up front, but when you factor in the issues, the increased hours required, and the numerous other headaches introduced... I suspect it's not nearly so cost-effective as most would believe.
*Two categories of programmers: "gets it" and "does not get it". The former can take an issue , solve it through logic alone, and feel a thrill of victory upon doing so. More, they'll understand the "root cause" of an issue and not be content to consider fixing a symptom as an effective resolution. The latter... if they ever solve an issue successfully, it's through brute force and luck.
(Addendum: I re-read my original post. Note to self: do not attempt to write a lengthy discourse at 4 in the morning again any time soon. While I get my point across, less rambling and fewer grammatical errors would have been nice...)
Try NWN2 online play - no monthly fee, so many different custom worlds that you're sure to find something to taste... and both are now dirt-cheap. (And both have decent single player campaigns and expansions.) [Full disclosure: I'm a sometime NWN2 persistent world admin, and I've done some work on NWN2 itself.]
While you won't find many massively populated worlds -- the top servers have ~60-90 online, and the bottom servers have 0-1 online players -- I personally find that's part of the appeal...
This was flamebait - but I can see how AC came to feel this way.
The model in place now encourages people with *no* talent for software or systems development to choose that as a career path, and it shows. That doesn't mean that there are no talented people there -- just that the outsourcing craze (and corresponding promise of significantly improved lifestyle for self and family) lures a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise even consider this career. To a lesser extent, the dot-com craze caused the same problem here in the US: a lot of people who had no skill or talent for software development jumping into the business as a way to make money.
The unfortunate truth is that they get away with it - I've seen first-hand how we've evolved our expectations of offshore outsourcing companies to be little more than monkeys behind keyboards. Innovation, troubleshooting skill, and general analysis ability are not requirements at most outsourcing shops. I've even gotten in trouble at work for being 'too stringent' in my requirements. This was because I expected a senior software developer to be able to describe how a hashtable works internally; why you might want to use a hashtable. I also expect them to be able to sketch out an object model for an everyday concept like a house. And when they couldn't , I rejected them. I was told that if they can churn out code to spec we want them.
At least one of the vendors we worked with (TCS) had a habit of listening in on the phone to our interviews (even recording on a couple of occasions, though they haven't admitted it - I know what a beep every five seconds means;), and amazingly the successive candidates got better and better at answering our basic technical questions. Now I can't say for *sure* that they were getting fed a questions list ahead of time, but I *do* know that the answer I receive from different candidates are remarkably close to identical on non-conceptual subjects. (On conceptual subjects, almost all bomb completely. Unfortunately, I'm not permitted to consider that in most cases.)
Anyway - the net result is that we have a lot of people who would function much better flipping burgers instead writing our code for us. And if our specs don't contain very very precise details (sadly some of our leads have taken to embedding code itself in the tech specs - which can then be copy-pasted, because it's just faster than getting them to fix it when they screw up), they flounder hopelessly. Similarly, they struggle mightily when trying to troubleshoot problems that I consider simple. (Hint: If you can't at least *start* to debug a problem without a log file and/or walking through a debugger, you have chosen the wrong career path.)
The most important thing here is that this isn't some deficiency or inability of any one group of people. I strongly suspect that the same ratio of talented:untalented exists in India as anywhere else in the world -- it's just obscured by the economics which makes being a poor or mediocre programmer a way to become relatively wealthy.
(Sigh. I wasn't going to add this addendum - but given the replies I've gotten in the past , I just *know* at least one person will think I'm serious. So here goes: in the preceding comment, I'M JOKING,. Dumb-ass. )
Slashdot Mirror
My own tastes run towards classic rock, classical, and metal that has an actual melody (not sure if there's a genre for that). That doesn't prevent me from recognizing and enjoying ability - if not genius - in other genres.
There's a surprising number of people who will classify entire genres of music as crap without considering that talented musicians can make an appearance anywhere. (Example: Prince. Once of the most versatile and talented musicians around today - largely disdained because his music is "pop" ). The funny part is that the same people will listen with steadfast determination to their own chosen genres, apparently deaf to the fact that the ratio of crap to talent is the same there as well.
There will come a point where - if enough attention is consistently drawn to their actions - various government entities will actually take notice and feel compelled to act.
But you eat more of what, presumably, doesn't taste good? So you've "moderated" your life by doing something unpleasant?
Absolutely not. That's how "diets" fail - I eat the same crappy food I always do. I supplement it with a higher ratio of things that are healthier -- which is absolutely not the same thing as saying I'm doing something unpleasant. (salted squash, zucchini, onion, tomato sauteed in a bit of olive to go with 1 or 2 pieces of my fried or bbq chicken, as opposed to just having 3-4 [or more] pieces of the chicken.). Most nights I'll even have regular-fat ice cream or a can of soda for dessert.
If anyone here actually knew how metabolism works actually put "health" into an evolutionary context, you'd realize the absurdity of low fat diets,
They are absurd, which is why I don't recommend it. Anything that is "low" X or "carb free" or any of the other fads -- aside from the dubious scientific value of it -- involves a mindset of "temporary change to lose some weight", and that is [imo] what leads to failure more than anything else.
What you can only do it set yourself up in a position that is not promoting inflammation and pathology. You can only provide the internal and external environment in which your regulatory systems work (read: entire body). You can't do the regulation for them.
I'll take your word for that as I lack the background to say one way or the other. What I *can* say is that by making relatively minor lifestyle changes, I've managed to lose and keep off a significant amount of weight without feeling like I'm depriving myself of anything (except feeling "full").
It's the Atlantic. What do you expect? Legitimate journalism?
I've lost over 50 lbs (and have kept it off for over a year now).. It took me about eight months . The "secret" is simple -- eat less. Exercise more.
The first: I don't mean starve yourself, or even significantly changing what you eat: six days out of seven, don't eat until you're "full". Increase the ratio of vegetables to everything else. That's pretty much it. (And it doesn't take long before you realize that the comfortable "full" feeling that was part of daily eating habits is actually pretty unpleasant,. )
The second: not talking about killing yourself at the gym here, or riding 10 miles a day. Just walk 1-2 miles, three-four days a week (five is even better) Or do anything that gets you out of breath for an equivalent amount of time (20-40 minutes). .
I still enjoy the occasional pizza and meal out (about 1-2 times a week). I still make food that' tastes good,and isn't always the healthiest. I just eat less of it.
You say that like it's a good thing.
To the people who make decisions, it is.
I'm sure, but I couldn't resist the temptation. I've no doubt my karmic punishment will arrive soon.
hey look to buy stuff to save money in the long run, not some gee whiz tech being hyped as the next cool thing
This is dangerously similar to the logic which says "It's on sale, so it's OK!" If you don't need it to begin with, in no way can purchasing it be justified as a savings -- present or future.
y pie-in-the-sky idea is a micromirror array, fed by three-colour lasers, that'll illuminate the eye's pupil with the correct pattern for each eye, with tracking of the pupil locations.
Lasers - in the eye?! We'd go BLIND, man! ;)
We all are suspects these days. It sucks and we should do something about it.
Queue vision of a tween boy sitting sullenly behind his computer, sucking a lollipop and pouting.
and want to check my e-mail while in [a?] Russian on business
That's some business!
According to TFA, the insurance company covered it. Admittedly the cost will filter down into the premiums, but the taxpayer didn't take a significant hit here (although as another post points out, hiring morons has a financial cost, and this is just an example of that).
That's another problem. There's this tendency to think that because "insurance covers it", there's no real cost.
I'm sort of afraid of the mayhem that will occur a bit before the current system will fall apart
Non-indemnified hardware running rampant! Patents running naked in the streets!
One area I tend to focus on in interviews is the day-to-day. I try to get someone to describe a problem they solved last week, or detail the design of a system they recently completed. Very often this causes stumbling as you pointed out - as real-world experience isn't something that be faked as easily as book knowledge.
Glad to hear that you've moved on from TCS. Hopefully you're in the category of programmers who "gets it"* -- it sounds like you may be.
I don't really blame TCS either - they've found a model that works; and for some reason, clients find this level of service acceptable. I just wish these clients would occasionally look at the *long term* cost of using these firms. The hourly numbers look great up front, but when you factor in the issues, the increased hours required, and the numerous other headaches introduced... I suspect it's not nearly so cost-effective as most would believe.
*Two categories of programmers: "gets it" and "does not get it". The former can take an issue , solve it through logic alone, and feel a thrill of victory upon doing so. More, they'll understand the "root cause" of an issue and not be content to consider fixing a symptom as an effective resolution. The latter... if they ever solve an issue successfully, it's through brute force and luck.
(Addendum: I re-read my original post. Note to self: do not attempt to write a lengthy discourse at 4 in the morning again any time soon. While I get my point across, less rambling and fewer grammatical errors would have been nice...)
While you won't find many massively populated worlds -- the top servers have ~60-90 online, and the bottom servers have 0-1 online players -- I personally find that's part of the appeal...
How long before he succumbs to narcissism and the kind of arrogance and paranoia that god-like powers would bring
Case in point ;)
That aside, it was funny to me. That's mostly the person I'm concerned with entertaining ;)
The model in place now encourages people with *no* talent for software or systems development to choose that as a career path, and it shows. That doesn't mean that there are no talented people there -- just that the outsourcing craze (and corresponding promise of significantly improved lifestyle for self and family) lures a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise even consider this career. To a lesser extent, the dot-com craze caused the same problem here in the US: a lot of people who had no skill or talent for software development jumping into the business as a way to make money.
The unfortunate truth is that they get away with it - I've seen first-hand how we've evolved our expectations of offshore outsourcing companies to be little more than monkeys behind keyboards. Innovation, troubleshooting skill, and general analysis ability are not requirements at most outsourcing shops. I've even gotten in trouble at work for being 'too stringent' in my requirements. This was because I expected a senior software developer to be able to describe how a hashtable works internally; why you might want to use a hashtable. I also expect them to be able to sketch out an object model for an everyday concept like a house. And when they couldn't , I rejected them. I was told that if they can churn out code to spec we want them.
At least one of the vendors we worked with (TCS) had a habit of listening in on the phone to our interviews (even recording on a couple of occasions, though they haven't admitted it - I know what a beep every five seconds means ;), and amazingly the successive candidates got better and better at answering our basic technical questions. Now I can't say for *sure* that they were getting fed a questions list ahead of time, but I *do* know that the answer I receive from different candidates are remarkably close to identical on non-conceptual subjects. (On conceptual subjects, almost all bomb completely. Unfortunately, I'm not permitted to consider that in most cases.)
Anyway - the net result is that we have a lot of people who would function much better flipping burgers instead writing our code for us. And if our specs don't contain very very precise details (sadly some of our leads have taken to embedding code itself in the tech specs - which can then be copy-pasted, because it's just faster than getting them to fix it when they screw up), they flounder hopelessly. Similarly, they struggle mightily when trying to troubleshoot problems that I consider simple. (Hint: If you can't at least *start* to debug a problem without a log file and/or walking through a debugger, you have chosen the wrong career path.)
The most important thing here is that this isn't some deficiency or inability of any one group of people. I strongly suspect that the same ratio of talented:untalented exists in India as anywhere else in the world -- it's just obscured by the economics which makes being a poor or mediocre programmer a way to become relatively wealthy.
Sorry to hear that...
http://xkcd.com/386/
When I say "who codes in assembler" in response to someone posting a snippet of "C", does it really need explaining?
Seriously? Troll? By what definition?
(Sigh. I wasn't going to add this addendum - but given the replies I've gotten in the past , I just *know* at least one person will think I'm serious. So here goes: in the preceding comment, I'M JOKING,. Dumb-ass. )
Like... who codes in assembler any more, anyway?