That's what unions are for. Unfortunately, tech workers are too dumb to unionise. Either that or tech staff spout some libertarian anti-union nonsense that if implemented wouldn't benefit them anyway. Why do you think all big companies lobby government? Too get protection and preference from the law, that's why. Corporations, doctors and lawyers cover their asses with restrictive practices, we should too. We just sit and take any BS employers and government throw at us.
Ever wonder why the salespeople and suits get the tickets the game and the "drive a ferrari for a day" prize when they deliver? It's because we tech workers behave like livestock.
This has got to be the most overrated book ever. It's one man's hopelessly out-of-date, patronising, down-home, folksy BS in the form of boring, repetitive, unsubstantiated anecdotes. I've never read so much waffle with so little actual content. It's basically advise on how to butter people up so you can sell them stuff or manipulate them so you can sell more stuff. Typical manipulative, overblown nonsense from a typical salesman-philosopher. A 1930s Gareth Cheesman (UK reference).
Yep. Tough. This acts as an incentive to *know* the company you're investing in. Not just to hit the button if X>Y. Caveat Emptor. Shares may go down as well as up. All that jazz.
First of all, I'm a UNIX guy. However, I'm currently working in a windows environment and encountering Solution and Project files.
What a mess. I don't know quite what it is about older Microsoft technologies but they're just duct-tape and glue (.NET/powershell etc seem interesting by comparison). However, Make is a sharp tool in the UNIX tradition: do one thing and do it well.
Now I'm not a VS expert but when I was learning Make I could sense that there was an underlying logic that made it worth learning. I don't get that feeling with VS.
I tried, but the docking/undocking/hiding/unhiding file/solution/class/whatever explorers just wore me down. I finally gave in when after ages trying I finally discovered that you *can't* use our version of VS over multiple monitors. Er... What?
Give me emacs any day, every day. I switched back. Ahhhhhhhh. I just use VS for build now.
that's called an ad homimem attack. just because you've never hear of him doesn't mean anything.
> If you aren't willing to go the extra mile, > especially in this job market, there is a line > of 10 guys behind you who are
and that's called "the race to the bottom": workers competing with each other to see who can be exploited the most. oh, he'll work weekends? I'll top that, I'll never turn my phone off, I'll sleep on the premises. f**k me harder.
you're welcome to be a sucker. our parents and grandparents fought for the right to leisure and decent working conditions and dorks like you will give up the whole lot in 5 minutes to out-macho some poster on slashdot.
it's simple: employers have a tendency to exploit. given free reign, they'll do so to quite disturbing extremes. workers should resist exploitation but some workers (like yourself) are either too dumb, too blind or too pathetically eager to impress to look after their own interests. employers must be laughing their asses off when people like you bat for their team - even if you are just swinging your dick, trying to look like the big man.
talk about turkeys voting for christmas...
> please drop this pretense that you are > entitled to be
yeah, that's right. he's not entitled to anything. f**k him, he's expendable. if it kills him, there's plenty more where he came from. f**k human decency, f**k leisure, f**k family, f**k culture, f**k self-improvement, f**k civilisation.
from the article:
"Saying that you wouldn't hire somebody for a programming job because they don't program in their spare time is blissfully naive."
Legal language is inpenetrable, unreadable and it's runtime environment - the legal system - is horribly unreliable and biased in favour of those who can afford the best lawyers.
Law is software, I *always* thought we should start treating it as such. The most obvious comparison is to a rules based system. Law is software, loopholes and logical contradictions are bugs.
The inefficiency of law was recently brought home to me during a friend's divorce. The two lawyers involved encouraged each party to push for outcomes that were totally unrealistic as a starting position. This resulted in length negotiation (and high fees - what a surprise). The outcome was something approaching a 50/50 split.
Now, IANAL but I'm guessing that people have got divorced before. The starting point should be 50/50 and most of the outcome can be boilerplate law. There is absolutely no need to start from the position that everything is up for grabs - it's not. In software terms: whole areas of the state space are eliminated by law and precedent - they can be immediately and reliably enforced by repeatable processes.
The difficulty of modern law is it's complexity. The more complex the law, the more varied the outcome when applied by human agents. You can see this in the repeated failure of highly complex financial fraud trials.
The key point is this:
Good law and reliable enforcement is much more important than good lawyers.
What is needed is a shift of focus from the practitioners of law to the drafters of law. Of course, lawyers will never allow this because it will undermine them. Lawyers are the problem. Again.
it looks like joel spolsky has finally completed the metamorphosis from developer to point haired boss.
for "duct tape programmer" read "programmer who will agree to do any old shit without complaint". if he wants to rationalise his crap management style let him.
when the software finally implodes as a result of this nonsense, the manager can order a re-write and call it "agile re-factoring" or some such opaque bullshit.
here's a new trendy software methodology for you:
"if you don't actually write code - shut the f**k up"
"Just don't rely on prayer as the only course of action"
and here's why you shouldn't rely on prayer as your only course of action: it can cause people to have unjustified *faith* in its outcome.
compare with the following sage advice:
"by all means use aromatherapy as a complimentary treatment for major trauma following a road-traffic accident - just don't rely on it as your only course of action".
in other words, you can perform as much additional ineffective bullshit as you like as long as you also do at least *one* thing that actually works.
here's a test of faith. your kid gets hit by a truck, you can only do one of two things:
>I thought the whole point of the F/OSS thing was > that everyone had access to the code, thus making > something like this less likely to affect anything
ok, here's an idea: what if slackeare linux wasn't the most important thing here?
this guy is ill; might die.
now concentrate *really* hard. ready?:
THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOFTWARE.
now relax.
Re:Good advice from a well versed programmer.
on
.NET or CORBA?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> I do believe corba supports opengl.
er, i don't think so.
corba is object middleware, UI issues are out of scope.
"Would the revealing of source code damage IP rights simply because it is in the open for all to see? Your ideas still remain your ideas and your implementation of said ideas are still yours as well, right?" In view of your recent spat with microsoft over them trying to retain control over publicly published material (their kerberos extension), i think this view is somewhat suprising...
Slashdot Mirror
That's what unions are for.
Unfortunately, tech workers are too dumb to unionise.
Either that or tech staff spout some libertarian anti-union nonsense that if implemented wouldn't benefit them anyway.
Why do you think all big companies lobby government? Too get protection and preference from the law, that's why.
Corporations, doctors and lawyers cover their asses with restrictive practices, we should too.
We just sit and take any BS employers and government throw at us.
Ever wonder why the salespeople and suits get the tickets the game and the "drive a ferrari for a day" prize when they deliver?
It's because we tech workers behave like livestock.
Elon Musk template headline: "Elon Musk Says He Will Do $(THING) by $(DATE)"
russoto: I didn't make it clear I agree with you! Just hate the book.
This has got to be the most overrated book ever.
It's one man's hopelessly out-of-date, patronising, down-home, folksy BS in the form of boring, repetitive, unsubstantiated anecdotes.
I've never read so much waffle with so little actual content.
It's basically advise on how to butter people up so you can sell them stuff or manipulate them so you can sell more stuff.
Typical manipulative, overblown nonsense from a typical salesman-philosopher.
A 1930s Gareth Cheesman (UK reference).
Don't waste your time.
Yep. Tough. This acts as an incentive to *know* the company you're investing in. Not just to hit the button if X>Y.
Caveat Emptor.
Shares may go down as well as up.
All that jazz.
Then our transformation from autonomous human beings to lab rats will be complete.
First of all, I'm a UNIX guy. However, I'm currently working in a windows environment and encountering Solution and Project files.
What a mess. I don't know quite what it is about older Microsoft technologies but they're just duct-tape and glue (.NET/powershell etc seem interesting by comparison). However, Make is a sharp tool in the UNIX tradition: do one thing and do it well.
Now I'm not a VS expert but when I was learning Make I could sense that there was an underlying logic that made it worth learning. I don't get that feeling with VS.
I tried, but the docking/undocking/hiding/unhiding file/solution/class/whatever explorers just wore me down. I finally gave in when after ages trying I finally discovered that you *can't* use our version of VS over multiple monitors. Er... What?
Give me emacs any day, every day. I switched back.
Ahhhhhhhh. I just use VS for build now.
> They simply cannot be stopped.
LOL.
> I'd never hire him.
right. because he's not a genius like you are.
you're some kind of artist, a visionary.
you're cool.
you're the best.
are you NEO?
> but considering I've never heard of you,
that's called an ad homimem attack.
just because you've never hear of him doesn't mean anything.
> If you aren't willing to go the extra mile,
> especially in this job market, there is a line
> of 10 guys behind you who are
and that's called "the race to the bottom":
workers competing with each other to see who can be exploited the most. oh, he'll work weekends? I'll top that, I'll never turn my phone off, I'll sleep on the premises. f**k me harder.
you're welcome to be a sucker.
our parents and grandparents fought for the right to leisure and decent working conditions and dorks like you will give up the whole lot in 5 minutes to out-macho some poster on slashdot.
it's simple: employers have a tendency to exploit. given free reign, they'll do so to quite disturbing extremes.
workers should resist exploitation but some workers (like yourself) are either too dumb, too blind or too pathetically eager to impress to look after their own interests.
employers must be laughing their asses off when people like you bat for their team - even if you are just swinging your dick, trying to look like the big man.
talk about turkeys voting for christmas...
> please drop this pretense that you are
> entitled to be
yeah, that's right.
he's not entitled to anything.
f**k him, he's expendable.
if it kills him, there's plenty more where he came from.
f**k human decency,
f**k leisure,
f**k family,
f**k culture,
f**k self-improvement,
f**k civilisation.
from the article:
"Saying that you wouldn't hire somebody for a programming job because they don't program in their spare time is blissfully naive."
you qualify.
I see you're joking too - but I completely agree.
Legal language is inpenetrable, unreadable and it's runtime environment - the legal system - is horribly unreliable and biased in favour of those who can afford the best lawyers.
Law is software, I *always* thought we should start treating it as such. The most obvious comparison is to a rules based system. Law is software, loopholes and logical contradictions are bugs.
The inefficiency of law was recently brought home to me during a friend's divorce. The two lawyers involved encouraged each party to push for outcomes that were totally unrealistic as a starting position. This resulted in length negotiation (and high fees - what a surprise). The outcome was something approaching a 50/50 split.
Now, IANAL but I'm guessing that people have got divorced before. The starting point should be 50/50 and most of the outcome can be boilerplate law. There is absolutely no need to start from the position that everything is up for grabs - it's not. In software terms: whole areas of the state space are eliminated by law and precedent - they can be immediately and reliably enforced by repeatable processes.
The difficulty of modern law is it's complexity. The more complex the law, the more varied the outcome when applied by human agents. You can see this in the repeated failure of highly complex financial fraud trials.
The key point is this:
Good law and reliable enforcement is much more important than good lawyers.
What is needed is a shift of focus from the practitioners of law to the drafters of law. Of course, lawyers will never allow this because it will undermine them. Lawyers are the problem. Again.
"He runs a little company that makes a desktop project tracking tool. That's not rocket science."
exact-a-mundo.
When he does something intesting i'll start listening.
it looks like joel spolsky has finally completed the metamorphosis from developer to point haired boss.
for "duct tape programmer" read "programmer who will agree to do any old shit without complaint".
if he wants to rationalise his crap management style let him.
when the software finally implodes as a result of this nonsense, the manager can order a re-write and call it "agile re-factoring" or some such opaque bullshit.
here's a new trendy software methodology for you:
"if you don't actually write code - shut the f**k up"
Hey, I've got a song called "ASCAP Says Apple Should Pay For 30-sec. Song Samples".
Thay can't say that. ...and the whole goddamn song is only 29s long.
I wrote that, it's in the chorus.
man, this is a legal minefield.
Yes, that's right. Employers want you to implement Bing queries in C#. If you can do that, all will be OK.
On the other hand, you could get an education and take this guy's job.
They've got so much in common.
Drunk on oil.
Devoutly religious.
A questionable grip on reality.
Corrupt, dumb-as-f**k politicians.
In love with the death penalty.
They deserve to be together.
On a positive note, Europe will be able to screw the USA in biotech. Go Texas!
Coming soon:
UK government suspects bears s**t in the woods.
compare with the following sage advice:
in other words, you can perform as much additional ineffective bullshit as you like as long as you also do at least *one* thing that actually works.here's a test of faith. your kid gets hit by a truck, you can only do one of two things:
1. pray.
2. call an ambulance.
exactly.
>I thought the whole point of the F/OSS thing was
> that everyone had access to the code, thus making
> something like this less likely to affect anything
ok, here's an idea: what if slackeare linux wasn't the most important thing here?
this guy is ill; might die.
now concentrate *really* hard. ready?:
THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOFTWARE.
now relax.
> I do believe corba supports opengl.
er, i don't think so.
corba is object middleware, UI issues are out of scope.
"Would the revealing of source code damage IP rights simply because it is in the open for all to see? Your ideas still remain your ideas and your implementation of said ideas are still yours as well, right?" In view of your recent spat with microsoft over them trying to retain control over publicly published material (their kerberos extension), i think this view is somewhat suprising...