The problem is that if your job is easy to telecommute-ify, then it's also easy to offshore to somebody willing accept far less pay. If the org is more comfortable having a person physically there, they are less likely to consider offshoring.
It appears I didn't explain the problem I encounter clear enough. I agree that the general concepts remain mostly the same, but the details and bugs and work-arounds and oddities and exceptions-to-the-rules are different.
These tools are often buggy or overly complex or don't play well with other addons and it takes time to learn the idiosyncrasies and experiment. One ends up micromanaging scroll bars or drag-and-drop oddities etc; things that should be settled after the idioms have existed for 30 odd years.
When one masters a tool it becomes almost reflex such that one is productive and feels productive. If it's full of (new) glitches and idiosyncrasies, then you waste a WHOLE lot of time fiddling with nagging details.
One should be mostly focusing on converting domain logic to UI's, not micromanaging a scrollbar that doesn't work right in browser version x.340282 because Google or MS failed to test that version with JQuery version y.492923 or whatnot. Browser ui's are the wild wild west still. (I've proposed moving most of the render load to the server in another topic to avoid client-version-combinatorial-explosions.)
I want to do real work, not babysit needy finicky pixels. That gets so fscking boring, and the customer is tired of paying for such fiddling also. Sometimes I want to outsource such fiddling to a $2/hr coder in the 3rd world, but that just perpetuates crap UI tech, and often a security risk.
The industry has a problem, but most coders don't care because it's job security. If ui's worked properly, I best at least 1/2 would be laid off.
Language change is only a portion of the total volume of change. You have lots of tool stack changes also, such web UI libraries (which break when a new browser version comes out), no-sql databases (often used where they shouldn't be), "corporate standard" code editor changes, having to use anonymous functions because the language has a crappy OOP model, etc.
I went into actually engineering and prefer it much more. Unless you're in R&D things change at a slower pace... because nobody wants unproven equipment running in their plant
Yet, co's are happy with unproven software fads. Go figure. I guess until IT fad chasing kills somebody, the Pointy-Haired-Bosses will keep falling for buzzwords.
"In the news today, due to a Mongo DB, a man had his brains sucked right out of his skull..."
While Microsoft's development "stack" has become a pain to install, configure, and keep updated; Microsoft does have a certain consistency with many aspects of their languages themselves, such as function names and behavior, and syntax. My knowledge of VB Classic and VBA from the 90's is still largely applicable to their dot-net offerings. From that aspect, I have to give MS credit (while kicking them for 100 other dumb actions).
Learn how to bullshit. I don't like to condone it, but it's what my successful colleagues have done. Learn just enough about new fads to sling the lingo to recruiters etc.
It's a Dilbertian world out there and those who master Diltertian ways win.
When you are young and don't yet have a family, you typically want to seek "fame and fortune" and be where the action is. Even if you don't strike it rich, it's where you get experience with the latest trends (or sometimes fads).
When you have a family, or just want stability and convenience, you are happier with something relatively mundane. You worked your ass off for a while, and want to settle into more of a cruise mode as you mature. Working long hours will burn you out eventually. You will have at least one of weight problems, marriage/relationship problems, and/or physical problems like back and hand issues, or just shear boredom from doing the same thing for so long.
The high churn-and-burn rate, and cost of living of the Bay Area and start-ups can wear one down.
The best model should bubble to the top until a better model is proposed. Multiverses and extra dimensions can produce models that "explain" (fit) observations, but they arguably lack parsimony and/or conservation of material/dimensions.
Maybe we are in an epicycle-like stage where we get into the habit of throwing more layers of circles at the problem (planet movements) until the next Copernicus/Galileo/Newtons come with cleaner models and formulas.
Is it that Galileo II hasn't arrived yet, or are we just circle-happy out of habit such that Galileo II is caught up in it also? (or ignored.) Hard to say. Keep an open mind and play with odd ideas.
having my knowledge obsoleted and being forced to learn new things
While this may come across as get-off-my-lawn-ish, I do largely agree because most of dev is catering to fads or ideas over-sold beyond their useful niche.
It used to be OOP that was over-hyped, and after a while people learned it's good for some things but not everything.
Now JavaScript, Functional Programming, parallel programmimg, and databases lacking joins, group-by, and ACID are being hyped. They have their place, but it's not everywhere.
And there is pair programming and all variations of agile shit. And don't even get me started about UI (non) standards, I'll rant for days.
Commercial entities don't make money if everything stays the same such that there is a financial incentive to hype fads. The IT industry is full of bullshit, and we waste a lot of time chasing bullshit, buzzwords, and eye-candy instead of doing useful work. The Ferengi's are in charge and have the Vulcans by their pointy balls.
The only area where humans outperform compilers reliably is conditional jumps. Because humans can usually more readily tell from the intended program flow which branch is more likely
Why can't hints be added to compiled languages to indicate the most common route? For example, special comments? Oracle SQL has a feature where a plus sign in comments indicates it's an optimization hint:/*+... */
Hire some thugs, or actors, in China to scare the counter-fitters with intimidating gestures and whatnot. They won't go to the cops because then they'd be exposed.
Addendum regarding classified markings versus classified content.
NYT: "A search of the emails released by the State Department turned up two of those, both memos from one of Mrs. Clinton's aides, Monica R. Hanley, preparing her for telephone calls with world leaders. The State Department on Wednesday argued that those markings were, in fact, included by mistake."
As I interpret it, the markings were included by mistake (according to SD), but that doesn't necessarily mean classified info was also included by mistake. The presence of markings and the presence of classified info could be different issues. There's nothing that forces bundling of both; they are not like entangled particles per quantum physics.
There is no reason to interpret that statement widely by default. Innocent until proven guilty.
The definitions I found don't say anything about "user control". There are OTHER problems with my word usage, but itza fricken joke, dammit. Stop hovering around the dictionary. Get out and walk the dog or something.
When dealing with classified stuff, there should be a second set of eyeballs to monitor stuff that gets emailed around.
The primary staffers are juggling gajillion different things such that they don't have a lot of time to double-vet everything. A dedicated monitoring staff can focus on secret protection and ONLY secret protection.
In some cases, the secondary monitors may not be able to catch a mistake before it's sent out, but could at least reprimand and educate those who are repeat offenders.
How does that indicate that "the data was not pulled from unclassified sources"?
I agree if the fact in question is something that can ONLY come from a USA agency or ONLY from a given source, then it's probably clear-cut. But that hasn't been establish, at least not in the way the public can verify.
there was sufficient text to identify sources tells us that it was not incidental information..
Please elaborate. Can you provide a specific example/instance? Are you talking about the "markings"?
It seems only a few had that issue, and markings themselves don't necessarily mean the classified content is carried along. It does indicate sloppy work, but not necessarily leakage of actual classified info itself. Perhaps the author pasted in the whole thing at first, deleted the secret part, but forgot to remove the markings.
Both Hillary and Comey are known drama artists and I take BOTH of them with a grain of salt and don't trust either of their claims at face value.
The legal definition of "gross negligence" sounds pretty damned close to "intent" to me.
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both."
Just because a classified fact ends up in a regular email does NOT necessarily mean the writer got that fact from a classified source. It's known that classified info often can be obtained from the press and other public sources.
How can the FBI know the ACTUAL source of classified facts ending up in the emails at issue? Comparing text to text doesn't necessarily tell you the source, only that two facts are the same or similar.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that if your job is easy to telecommute-ify, then it's also easy to offshore to somebody willing accept far less pay. If the org is more comfortable having a person physically there, they are less likely to consider offshoring.
It appears I didn't explain the problem I encounter clear enough. I agree that the general concepts remain mostly the same, but the details and bugs and work-arounds and oddities and exceptions-to-the-rules are different.
These tools are often buggy or overly complex or don't play well with other addons and it takes time to learn the idiosyncrasies and experiment. One ends up micromanaging scroll bars or drag-and-drop oddities etc; things that should be settled after the idioms have existed for 30 odd years.
When one masters a tool it becomes almost reflex such that one is productive and feels productive. If it's full of (new) glitches and idiosyncrasies, then you waste a WHOLE lot of time fiddling with nagging details.
One should be mostly focusing on converting domain logic to UI's, not micromanaging a scrollbar that doesn't work right in browser version x.340282 because Google or MS failed to test that version with JQuery version y.492923 or whatnot. Browser ui's are the wild wild west still. (I've proposed moving most of the render load to the server in another topic to avoid client-version-combinatorial-explosions.)
I want to do real work, not babysit needy finicky pixels. That gets so fscking boring, and the customer is tired of paying for such fiddling also. Sometimes I want to outsource such fiddling to a $2/hr coder in the 3rd world, but that just perpetuates crap UI tech, and often a security risk.
The industry has a problem, but most coders don't care because it's job security. If ui's worked properly, I best at least 1/2 would be laid off.
Language change is only a portion of the total volume of change. You have lots of tool stack changes also, such web UI libraries (which break when a new browser version comes out), no-sql databases (often used where they shouldn't be), "corporate standard" code editor changes, having to use anonymous functions because the language has a crappy OOP model, etc.
Yet, co's are happy with unproven software fads. Go figure. I guess until IT fad chasing kills somebody, the Pointy-Haired-Bosses will keep falling for buzzwords.
"In the news today, due to a Mongo DB, a man had his brains sucked right out of his skull..."
While Microsoft's development "stack" has become a pain to install, configure, and keep updated; Microsoft does have a certain consistency with many aspects of their languages themselves, such as function names and behavior, and syntax. My knowledge of VB Classic and VBA from the 90's is still largely applicable to their dot-net offerings. From that aspect, I have to give MS credit (while kicking them for 100 other dumb actions).
Learn how to bullshit. I don't like to condone it, but it's what my successful colleagues have done. Learn just enough about new fads to sling the lingo to recruiters etc.
It's a Dilbertian world out there and those who master Diltertian ways win.
When you are young and don't yet have a family, you typically want to seek "fame and fortune" and be where the action is. Even if you don't strike it rich, it's where you get experience with the latest trends (or sometimes fads).
When you have a family, or just want stability and convenience, you are happier with something relatively mundane. You worked your ass off for a while, and want to settle into more of a cruise mode as you mature. Working long hours will burn you out eventually. You will have at least one of weight problems, marriage/relationship problems, and/or physical problems like back and hand issues, or just shear boredom from doing the same thing for so long.
The high churn-and-burn rate, and cost of living of the Bay Area and start-ups can wear one down.
The best model should bubble to the top until a better model is proposed. Multiverses and extra dimensions can produce models that "explain" (fit) observations, but they arguably lack parsimony and/or conservation of material/dimensions.
Maybe we are in an epicycle-like stage where we get into the habit of throwing more layers of circles at the problem (planet movements) until the next Copernicus/Galileo/Newtons come with cleaner models and formulas.
Is it that Galileo II hasn't arrived yet, or are we just circle-happy out of habit such that Galileo II is caught up in it also? (or ignored.) Hard to say. Keep an open mind and play with odd ideas.
While this may come across as get-off-my-lawn-ish, I do largely agree because most of dev is catering to fads or ideas over-sold beyond their useful niche.
It used to be OOP that was over-hyped, and after a while people learned it's good for some things but not everything.
Now JavaScript, Functional Programming, parallel programmimg, and databases lacking joins, group-by, and ACID are being hyped. They have their place, but it's not everywhere.
And there is pair programming and all variations of agile shit. And don't even get me started about UI (non) standards, I'll rant for days.
Commercial entities don't make money if everything stays the same such that there is a financial incentive to hype fads. The IT industry is full of bullshit, and we waste a lot of time chasing bullshit, buzzwords, and eye-candy instead of doing useful work. The Ferengi's are in charge and have the Vulcans by their pointy balls.
Why can't hints be added to compiled languages to indicate the most common route? For example, special comments? Oracle SQL has a feature where a plus sign in comments indicates it's an optimization hint: /*+ ... */
Hire some thugs, or actors, in China to scare the counter-fitters with intimidating gestures and whatnot. They won't go to the cops because then they'd be exposed.
Sometimes you gotta fight slime with slime.
Spock, show ... me ... your ...... photon torpedo!
There's a whole galaxy, make Sulu into tentacled hermaphrodites from Alpha Reticuli.
Indeed, Windows 10 improves Microsoft's "accessibility", of your system to them.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Yes, somebody made a mistake by including (at least) the markers. I'm not claiming otherwise.
"Obese creationist women shoot up office because of lack of STEM opportunities."
Addendum regarding classified markings versus classified content.
NYT: "A search of the emails released by the State Department turned up two of those, both memos from one of Mrs. Clinton's aides, Monica R. Hanley, preparing her for telephone calls with world leaders. The State Department on Wednesday argued that those markings were, in fact, included by mistake."
http://www.nytimes.com/live/ja...
As I interpret it, the markings were included by mistake (according to SD), but that doesn't necessarily mean classified info was also included by mistake. The presence of markings and the presence of classified info could be different issues. There's nothing that forces bundling of both; they are not like entangled particles per quantum physics.
There is no reason to interpret that statement widely by default. Innocent until proven guilty.
The definitions I found don't say anything about "user control". There are OTHER problems with my word usage, but itza fricken joke, dammit. Stop hovering around the dictionary. Get out and walk the dog or something.
When dealing with classified stuff, there should be a second set of eyeballs to monitor stuff that gets emailed around.
The primary staffers are juggling gajillion different things such that they don't have a lot of time to double-vet everything. A dedicated monitoring staff can focus on secret protection and ONLY secret protection.
In some cases, the secondary monitors may not be able to catch a mistake before it's sent out, but could at least reprimand and educate those who are repeat offenders.
How does that indicate that "the data was not pulled from unclassified sources"?
I agree if the fact in question is something that can ONLY come from a USA agency or ONLY from a given source, then it's probably clear-cut. But that hasn't been establish, at least not in the way the public can verify.
Please elaborate. Can you provide a specific example/instance? Are you talking about the "markings"?
It seems only a few had that issue, and markings themselves don't necessarily mean the classified content is carried along. It does indicate sloppy work, but not necessarily leakage of actual classified info itself. Perhaps the author pasted in the whole thing at first, deleted the secret part, but forgot to remove the markings.
Both Hillary and Comey are known drama artists and I take BOTH of them with a grain of salt and don't trust either of their claims at face value.
I think it's fair now to see how Colin Powell's team did.
The legal definition of "gross negligence" sounds pretty damned close to "intent" to me.
"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both."
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
Just because a classified fact ends up in a regular email does NOT necessarily mean the writer got that fact from a classified source. It's known that classified info often can be obtained from the press and other public sources.
How can the FBI know the ACTUAL source of classified facts ending up in the emails at issue? Comparing text to text doesn't necessarily tell you the source, only that two facts are the same or similar.
in MongoDeepNode.js+++ with appier apping of apps!
I'm itchin' to try it on the ol' Wingding font