You know, this seems to work both ways. Ever worked with a homebrew framework that didn't have good exception-handling or some type of passable tracing? The other end of the spectrum from these IBM Java guys are the people who still hardcode strings everywhere in the system and hand-code ALL of their stored procs and data access layer.
There are actually two problems here
The Principle of Least Threshold
Enterprise Hubris
From the top, Javaheads like your above description are trapped in the Enterprise way of thinking. And hey they're building apps that will process more transactions in one day than many other small business apps will ever process. They have the right to be a little proud, the problem is that they're not very good at "scoping downwards". These frameworks all scaled up and came together, but now they have 400 pages of documentation and 12 different config files and everything is interdependent b/c they didn't want to lose functionality.
Even written a good business logic layer (BLL)? Nor have I, nor have like 90%+ of programmers, but it's ok, most of them never need it. The BLL is just useless abstraction for the typical database front-end that we develop. BLL just gets smushed in with Entities and UI b/c it's pointlessly complicated to develop on all but the biggest systems.
On the flip side, you get the Principle of Least Threshold, which is my term for the phenomenon where the perception of quality is limited by the highest level quality one has experienced. There are millions of small developers out there (VB 6 was the second most-used langauge at one point), who have never worked with any thing close to these monstruous Struts frameworks. So they don't understand them and they don't need half of the functionality and they can't spend 4 months figuring out how the system works, so they just build their own system one piece at a time and keep re-creating the parts of the wheel that they actually need.
I'm living this, our Data Objects framework doesn't have tracing. Nobody cares but me, b/c I'm the only one who knows what a godsend it is to have instrumentation code. Just yesterday, wasted 2-3 hours diagnosing a problem that would've taken 10 minutes if we'd had minimal tracing (queries?).
Of course, the real solution lies between the two camps. The Javaheads with the arcane infrastructure and architecture knowledge need to enable mechanisms to scale the complexity of their frameworks. The other guys need to start pushing from the other direction. But most of all the leaders in the field need to learn to embrace differences and change (man that sounds corny).
When anyone starts spouting off about good software or bad software, they must at least identify the scale of the software with which they are working (and when was the last time we saw that). Unacceptable mistakes in an Enterprise Framework are just ignored in a 12-user system. In fact nearly every piece of code posted to the web is unacceptable in an Enterprise environment, b/c it fails to catch errors or instance tracing or define attributes or use fully qualified types or validate inputs or even comment in a way that is compatible with JavaDoc/NDoc/Sandcastle.
A twenty line class in an Enterprise app could have 80 lines of associated "overhead code" that just plugs the class into the framework. Is this elegant and beautiful or just clunky and cumbersome? That answer could vary by system size, by programmer skill or even by personal taste. But no one seems to want to acknowledge this reality. The small guys call the Enterprise guys "clunky" and they in turn call the small guys "clumsy". So in the end they just ignore each other and throw rocks in each other's general direction and nobody stands and up and says "Hey guys, it's a continuum, it's not black and white, our solutions can only be inspirations for yours."
We need new leaders. The guys in my CoDe & MSDN magazines aren't sitting around handing out three differ
I actually got a recruiter e-mail the other day for which I was basically a perfect match. I even had the soft skills they were looking for "bilingualism", training and support experience.
So I replied with the resume and comments about salary range (which wasn't listed), experience range (also not listed) and how the job listing looked very "boilerplate" and looked like a request for "bodies" and not for talent.
He replied with the list of 20 questions asking for further details. The first 8 questions were "how much experience have you had with technology XYZ"... So I replied by saying: you didn't answer my question about salary range and you asked really stupid questions, clearly this is not a job for me.
End of the day, recruiter just cost them an opportunity and never addressed any of my issues.
Well fellow/.ers, the article was pulled (anyone have an original for laughter purposes?) I'm oddly proud of the/. community for successfully cleaning cruft from the vast sludge of the internet.
If only with could do this stuff for mainstream media... like any of us bother any more:)
I'm of the belief that there are two ways to protect your stuff: Insurance and Karma (not the/. kind). And a third, unsung way of "don't have stuff":) Everything else is just "risk management": don't park in bad areas, have "enough" locks on the doors, live in a "good" area, install security systems, install security cameras.
But at the end of the day, if someone really wants to steal your stuff, they will. And, ironically, I fell strengthened by that very feeling of disempowerment.
Winnipeg is just big enough to have one of everything. The Royal Winnipeg Ballet (RWB) is second only to the Canadian National Ballet and Winnipeg has Symphony Orchestra (WSO) as well. If you like theatre there are multiple companies including the MTC (Manitoba Theatre Centre), which also has a "lower-cost" venue called MTC Warehouse. There's also the Praire Theatre Exchange and a company that runs theatre targetted at kids. I say "low-cost" as top tickets to most of these events do not exceed $100 CDN and great tickets can be had in the $50-60 range.
If you like night life and clubbing most of the clubs are "teeny bars" (18-21) and are owned by the CanadInns hotel chain (unless you're 18-24, I would avoid these). Bars in the Exchange District (downtown, just North of Portage and Main) are generally higher end and better behaved. Cover is generally $5 or less and drinks range from a minimum $2.25 on special to $5-6 at the "high-end" clubs. We have some relatively strict laws in terms of pitchers and maximum drinks, so you can't order yourself a pitcher, nor can you order yourself 8 shots unless you have friends around as "targets" for the drinks:). Worth knowing if you're a drinker. If you are planning on clubbing, my suggestion would be Coyote's night club (on Pembina). They have live bands on weekends, a great 20-something crowd and an outdoor patio.
You North Dakotans have the Alerus Centre, but Winnipeggers have the recently opened MTS Centre, right downtown. The MTS Centre is one of the top 20 venues in North America, so pretty much every big show with an NA tour stops by Winnipeg (!). Winnipeggers have been starved of big shows for so long that they're selling them out quite regularly too. Last year they hosted a Raptor's pre-season game, and they host the AHL hockey team the Manitoba Moose. Downtown used to a be a hole, but between the Exchange District and the MTS centre the place is now buzzing pretty constantly.
There are tons of hotels walking distance to all of these places (theatres, Exchange, MTS centre all within a few square miles) and buses run to/from downtown until late.
If you've never seen a CFL game (yeah Canadian Football!) then it's worth checking out the Blue Bombers play at the stadium. Individual tickets range from $15 to 60/seat (cheap!) and the game itself is really entertaining. The field is wider and longer including a 20-yard end-zone. It's 3 downs and 12 a side, not 4 & 11 (as you probably know) and there is no "fair catch" rule. Instead there's always a return but the defense must provide 5 yards when the ball is picked up. For football fans it basically means that there are more changes of possession and way more scoring opportunities and games don't get "locked-up" in the 4th quarter. The talent pool is obviously smaller, but I've argued that the game is inherently more exciting (worth a watch at least).
In the summer we also have the Goldeyes baseball team that plays at "The Fishbowl" (CanWest Global Park), which was just built a few years ago. It's obviously not Major League, but tickets range from $4 to $15 (yeah 15 behind the backstop!) and the place is well-known for its mini-donuts. It also has a great Asian restaurant attached "Hu's on First" (boo:)
Popular festivals include FolkFest (lots of Pot and music at a campground) and Folklarama which features dozens of "cultural pavilions" with food and entertainment native to countries the world over. Le Festival du Voyageur is a franco-manitoban tradition that runs for a week in the dead of February and includes tons of activities: Ice sculptures, Maple Sugar Shack, frontiersman actors in an old fort, beard-growing contests, crafts, striped belts, pea soup and pancakes, dog-sled races and way more.
Restaurants abound, but popular ones include: Mitzi's (best chicken wings in town!), the Royal Crown (revolving restaurant), Hy's and Bailey's (both high-end and downtown), Earl's on Main (most beautiful servers!
In any non-legal document, I feel that emoticons are useful communication tools. We don't have easy access to some type of "vidmail", but "tone" is incredibly important in communication. It's often stated (based on studies) that 80%+ of verbal communication rests on "tone" and "body language" with only 20%- resting on actual words.
As humans, we have years of experience interpreting and understanding "tone" and "body language". To the point of even forgiving wording and phrasing based on these other factors. Truth is, we're actually pretty bad at communicating without those cues, we're just not used to writing and measuring words at face value, we're always tinging what we say with how we say it.
E-mails aggravate the complexities of communication b/c we're removing 80% of the actual human conversation. We're then leaving the other 20% to words that are often poorly defined or poorly understood (or both) and then polluting the waters with people who don't appreciate/understand the differences inherent in written communication. We've all been part of at least one office e-mail that caused us to walk over to the writer's desk and engage in verbal communication b/c the written communication was not clear or concise. We've probably all seen or written horrible technical documentation that failed to correctly convey meaning or structure or importance.
The use of emoticons help us bridge that gap (except for the technical docs). Using "smilies" to replace facial expressions helps to bring in part of that 80% that we lost when we started writing e-mails. Effective use of bold face, italics, ALL CAPS, punctuation and spacing / paragraph structure are also very important drivers in bridging that gap (as you'll note in this very post). Correct bolding and italicizing and punctuation help to fill in those little things we do when we talk: emphasize words, pause for effect, and add physical motion to what we are saying.
e.g.: something THIS BIG is clearly larger in size than something This Big. We would normally convey this with "body language", "tone" and subtle lengthening or shortening of the words. Here, I'm just hoping that capitalization and bold facing do the job.
As people improve their ability to write you'll see an expanded use of all of these tools of communication. But "smilies" (I hope) are just the beginning of our e-mail improvements.
No, no, the "hate crimes" thing was just a misinterpretation that was spread. The key concept is "incite to violence", priests can definitely voice their malcontent about homosexuals in the church or in general, you just can't tell your parishioners to kill, beat, maim or verbally abuse homosexuals. But this is pretty much the same everywhere, you can't go walking around telling people that "Arabs are bad" and that we "should jail them all", but you're not really allowed to say that anywhere in the western world.
As to the "blank media tax", it only applies to CDs (which means that DVD+-R are actually cheaper than CD-R:), but it's also helped keep the MAFIAA at bay. P2P "services" are not really in violation of the law here (AFAIK & for now). In one landmark case, the judge basically said "You can't nail this person for stealing music, they paid the blank media tax so they're allowed to grab this music and burn it on to a CD, that's what they paid the tax for."
As to the women, hey, beautiful women are everywhere:) I would personally cast my vote for Winnipeg, which is best described as a big city (750k) with a small town mentality. Filled with lots of humble, hard-working people, the women tend to follow this trend, so they're not just beautiful, they're actually approachable;) (guess where I met my fiancé?)
I would say "Join us in Canada", but I don't know how much further that will take you. We have "more taxes", but that pretty much evens out when you factor American healthcare costs.
We have lots of parties getting votes and seats. A few of which are definitely "not" trying to fight to "be in the middle" and win all of the votes. We have more or less the same freedoms as Americans, but way (way, way) less guns and a way smaller army.
We have tons and tons and tons of space and more than enough natural resources for this lifetime. So when things start to go south for the USD (maybe too late), the CDN won't be dragged too far, b/c it's still "cashable", it still has value. Of course, it's only a matter of time before the world's biggest army annexes the world's biggest peacekeepers. At which point I guess you'll have more fresh air:(
What? Stocks = Shareholders = Part owners of the company
All Public-owned companies are beholden, by law, to act in their shareholder's best interests. When stocks are up, that means that shareholders are happy which inherently means that they're selling software.
Contrary to popular belief MS is still making lots of money. You can say that MS software sales are down, but you're too lazy (again) to even bother to look up that number, or hyperlink to any source of value.
You may not have a solid understanding of investing, or you may believe it to be some form of tea-leaves reading. But when stock value is moving up that means that lots of people think that Microsoft is going to be worth more money. And again, the number are proving that their revenue is increasing year over year.
Look you've obviously been modded up elsewhere on/. so it's unlikely that you're a complete fool, however you just walked in to a sword fight with your sharpened spoon. When you have something useful to say that isn't a waste of the very bandwidth it's using then maybe you can try again:)
OK, when you're telling me that something is completely untrue about the stock markets you can at least check the charts.
Microsoft has been consistently between ~$21 & ~$30 for the last 3 years or so. Since mid-November in 2006 they've covered that entire ground (from 21 to 30+), which means that their market cap is up. So I seriously question your "bottom line" comments b/c MS doen't seem to be suffering that much. Windows Server usage is actually moving up. And home Windows usage is likely moving sideway to "slightly" down as usual. (which is irrelevant b/c, let's face it, when you have more than 90% share in a competitive market, you basically have to go down)
So basically you managed to spout a bunch of opinions with no research and a complete failure to counter anything I've mentioned. You may believe that these flaws are impacting the bottom line of the MS OS division, but if you can't bother to at least do a Google and look up stock prices then you're just spouting fumes.
You're also not making any counters to my SAP comments. You got all in a huff about MS, but you didn't give me one good reason why a giant like SAP should be paying for security flaws. You've done nothing to help improve my understanding of reality (or anyone else's), you've done nothing to clarify the situation or attempt to even correctly grasp the problem.
So, in light of that, I think paying for flaws is actually a very good idea.
Clearly I did too, I was trying to tell you why it's not happening and you didn't listen.
I hear your anger, but it's CIO magazine, not codeproject.net. You're right, programmers are the actual generators. I have this theory I can "fallacy of management", which is the concept that managers are responsible for project delivery and are therefore "worth more" than the people that "work under them". Managers tend to be good talkers and it's very common to subscribe to the "fallacy of management", so management can actually get away with pretending that they are the most important piece of the project. (And new management grads expect top salaries)
Management in the purest sense is actually just overhead. Task assessment, delegation and tracking are all just overhead on a project and do not produce deliverables. However, IT has very few "pure managers", these people also end up being analysts and customer/sponsor relations and designers and PR for their team. Analysis and Design and Communication are all deliverable duties, so the actual goal of PM software is to let managers spend more time on deliverables and less time on overhead.
Of course, smart companies would rid themselves of people who are "only overhead" and replace them with software. But smart companies would also avoid alienating good generators by paying bonuses and inflated salaries to "managers" (we're a little short on "smart IT companies"). This hasn't happened yet, but if you look at something like Google, where they've abstracted out most of the "management duties", you'll see that IT will start to look like Engineering Consulting in the coming years. With a progression of responsibilities and less interference of management "specialists" with no relevant domain knowledge.
But we're not there yet, and probably won't be for a while. IT people are notorious for being bad communicators and seemingly bad at understanding business needs. People inherently understand that building a 100-story building is very difficult, but they don't understand why managing a database with 1 millions records and 400 tables should be all that difficult. We need to bridge that gap if we're going to legitimize IT and deliver quality projects.
Hey man, I love your "spend time on the floor" concept. I'm behind that 100%, truth is, if I could convince everyone of the importance of this, I would book in a site visit to every client we worked for. I don't think that I have that sway yet.
Of course, with Scope Creep, the biggest issue I've seen is usually the manager. Even with full-out change requests forms, I've seen managers lose stuff, or make non-transparent decisions about features. The best driver for controlling creep is having a next step. Projects don't stretch when they can't. But then you need managers with foresight and organization and five-year plans and all that crap they're paid for but often do without.
But let's face it, keeping a multi-month project plan with details for this project and the next one and all of the possible outstanding ones is a lot of hard work and not really expected, b/c that type of vision needs to come from the top and it's not normally there.
Basic premise is that the bitterness is probably misplaced. Truth is, the guys giving "bad requirements" don't really know any better, I mean, they don't know how to program. If they knew how to program, they wouldn't need us. So that's what analysts do, they convert CEO-speak to good requirements. On smaller projects, analysts ARE programmers, but these are still two different hats.
Now the number one function of an analyst's job is to generate "good requirements" that will fit the needs of the business and that will enable the programming department to complete the job. This means separating what the client "actually wants" from what they "think they want". This means understanding "corner cases" and how data flows through and between systems. This usually means lots of drawing and meetings and pictures, etc. The sponsor usually can't do this stuff, they don't know how, they don't program, they don't think this way, that's what the analyst is there for.
Now, if you're the analyst and the "project sponsor" (eg.: manager, CEO) doesn't give this information to the analyst, then the project doesn't happen. It's actually the analyst's job to stop the project, talk to the sponsor and get things rolling again or drop the project.
You may be bitter at the CEO in the executive suite, but these problems are not their fault. These problems are solely the failure of the Analyst and/or the Project Lead. The lead on the project is responsible for protecting both the project and the team. Failure to gather appropriate requirements and to garner appropriate sponsor buy-in are both failure in protecting the team and the project. These people are therefore the target of your bitterness and ire. The person in IT who accepted the impossible task is truly to blame.
Look, there are lots of good explanations here, and personally, I'm a fan of the "bounty system". When I first saw "bounties" for Ubuntu I was overjoyed! Feeding IT people is really important for IT growth.
However, in this case, the logical flaw is actually the market, do a cost/benefit analysis. Microsoft, as a monopoly, does not make or lose any significant amount of money on OS security flaws. Companies with a budget capable of supporting security flaw bounties, don't actually need them short-term.
These big companies are publicly held and security flaw bounties do not help quarterly profits, or even annual profits (why these are important is a different issue). If I have SAP running my 10,000 employee business I can't just leave b/c SAP has too many security holes, moving is very expensive. It's probably cheaper to eat a small customer lawsuit than to switch systems. Now, if I'm really smart/motivated/scared I may move off on the next upgrade cycle, but these cycles only happen every 5-10 years. So SAP won't set up public security bounties b/c it is not beneficial to their shareholders in any way they can fathom. MS has the same deal, sure they can make the OS/DB/IIS more secure, but it must already be secure enough as nobody's leaving, right?
You have the right idea, but the impetus for broad security testing is simply not there. The only people who would "benefit" from such bounties are actually the unestablished new-comers or the competitors to monopolies (like Linux providers). With an open bounties system, these companies can use the security feature as leverage for marketing their product. But these are still very long-term deals and such a company would need to convince investors that the long-term benefits of such an action outweigh the short-term costs.
In the case of say, Linux and LAMP and PostGreSQL, we're probably there. These guys are great candidates for such open bounties. And these long-term activities are likely to pay off. Mac OS X may benefit from the same interest as they try and poach desktop/home users. But MS and SAP and other dominant players can't deliver better profits to their investors with such a system, so they won't do anything until investors get scared and start demanding one. We're not there yet.
Hey, cool, management knows what SOA is! Now is the time to explain the costs of implementing and running an SOA and to give the manager a good idea of the benefits in your environment. When your boss talks about stuff like this, they typically don't have enough information to make anything other than a passing "hey that's neat comment". If you can tell them that you've been reading about SOA for 3-4 years and that you've been investigating the options, he'll think that you're both pretty smart. If you go a step further and talk about the vendor support for the systems you're using and maybe some future expansions and even some dollar numbers then maybe that manager can use your information to make some positive system changes.
As to being understaffed and "The poor people on the front lines". That's just self-loathing BS. Either you're working with your company to be succesfful or you're moving on.
If your department is understaffed, then it's your job to be talking to the boss and increase the staff or to leave b/c you're paid one salary for doing two or three jobs. If the department is understaffed and can't find new staff then they're not paying enough, don't trust their staff or they have a big black mark in the industry. They're probably not making enough money to pay people well or they're run by people who don't understand the cost of paying people well. Don't complain about these companies, take leadership and make them better or just leave them.
Hey man, if you're too lazy to or budget-constrained to set up test boxes, then at the very least wait a week for the patches to be tested by others and keep your eyes out on the appropriate boards.
But let's face it, if you have 200+ PCs and you can't spring for like 4 Test boxes (2%) then your business has serious issues. A typical 200+ PC corporate environment can have a dozen different custom vendor apps (I'm sure some will say 50). You should be testing patches for *all* of these in a closed Test environment.
If you're not doing this, it's your professional responsibility to tell your boss what's happening and to ensure that he is aware of the risks. And do this in writing! When the system goes down due to an automatic vendor patch and 100 people are left surfing the web all morning, you must have this piece of paper explaining the situation. 'Cause I'm sick of hearing people describe how "their boss is a dick" when they can't even cover their own butts.
It could even be responsible for the public's acceptance of no gold standard for the dollar. They're not demanding to know what the reference point of "one dollar" is.
I'll do you one further, as we get further and further from solidity with numbers we will get progressively worse at handling it. As we deal with less and less cash, the money we have simply has less weight. We've all seen this phenomenon, anyone who does everything with cash will typically be better at handling their money, b/c they're "handling" their money. Some "get out debt" programs actually suggest the use of cash, even over debit (which is ubiquitous here in Canada). It seems that physical cash has a psychological effect on us.
Pretty much all of our banking is now done in vaporous "numbers on a ledger", which does not lend itself to providing us with "Mass" about what the numbers mean. We have to convert this to time just to get an idea. I mean, what's $10,000? Nothing unless you think of it as two months of your time (or maybe a full year's worth of "disposable" income).
I would dare say that the lack of a "gold standard" runs just as deep (or maybe deeper still). Personally, I would love it if we froze the money supply and only added money based on birth rates. So if each Canadian had X dollars associated with them and the population increased by Y, then each year we could print XY dollars and basically kill inflation. Of course, the guys with the money (gov and banks) would not appreciate that b/c they benefit from the public buying into the illusion that today's 50k is worth more than 1980's 20k (it's not). Again with just numbers and no mass associated they can distract people.
I work at a small consulting firm that actually has better than average pay and the laid-back work environment. When I do interviews I'm typically looking for people who value stuff like flex-time, lunch-time poker and 4 monitors on their desk.
When I asked one intermediate-level interviewee about salary, he quoted a price that was clearly in the senior-level range. So I asked him for more details about what he really wanted: works hours, vacation weeks, training benefits, free pop and lunches, etc. He didn't really have an answer, 8-5, 5 days/week, couldn't care less about vacation or training time.
So I pretty much said NO at that point, but not just b/c of his high number (maybe his programming test would show that he was worth it), I said no b/c he wouldn't place any value on the benefits we do have.
The guys we currently have working here all appreciate the benefits. They're all making enough money to live (and thrive by), so the rest is really just gravy to them. We could pay them 2k they don't really need or we can make their day-to-day life much easier (bring in lunches, noon-hour poker and games, very flexible time, free pop/Red Bull/Coffee).
You sound a little bitter, but it doesn't sound like it's just the money, if you (and everyone else) is/are constantly working overtime then your company has other problems. Perks are there to help make your life easier and help with the work process. Things like child-care or catered lunches or "nap rooms" or games (for those brain breaks) are there to help productivity and reduce stress. But if you have a pool table in the lunch room that nobody uses b/c everyone thinks you're a slacker while you're on it, then it's not really a Perk.
So when I interview, that's why I ask questions. If you don't care about the ability to come in "late" and avoid traffic, then the perks we're giving you have no value, so we won't be able to meet your expectations. If you're company is giving you perks so you can work longer, then they're really missing the point. I want to give you perks so that you can worry less.
OK, let's get some details straight here (Winnipeger here), this has been in the works for a couple of years, with a few really important factors guiding the process.
All Manitoba drivers are insured by Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI), which are a not-for-profit government-run insurance company.
Winnipeg has had a very high rate of auto-theft over the last decade or more. With everyone covered by public insurance, this kind of becomes a political issue.
The primary cause of this theft problem is "joy-riding". There may be gangs stealing cars in Winnipeg, but this is really not the primary concern, nor is it the public view. The problem consists of lots of joy-riding, most of the stolen cars are found, they just have $1500-2000 worth of damage between steering column and lights and labour (and some minor body) damage.
The article fails to mention the MPI deal. They cover half of the installation cost of an immobilizer provided by one of two companies. This costs ~$110 on older cars (had it on a '95 Caravan) and they'll even book the thing for you (so they can spread the work around). Once it's installed they give you ~$50/year off the insurance on that vehicle (public insurance insures the vehicle for collision, not the driver).
So the basic goal here is to slow down the joy-riding. They anti-theft devices they are installing require both the car key AND the little key fob. Contrary to some espoused opinions, they do indeed go through the process of re-wiring the starter through the device and they specifically install a red blinking light on the dashboard as a "hey-we're-protected" marker.
Yeah it doesn't stop the "steal they key" method, but that wasn't the problem. It doesn't stop the computer + hot-wire method, but that wasn't the problem either. It doesn't stop people from smashing and grabbing stuff, but hey, that wasn't the problem either. The goal is to make it more difficult to steal cars and it's going to work.
Now as to the whole "public" insurance thing, it has some serious benefits. Accidents are resolved quickly and everyone involved is taken care of (it's a government responsibility), young drivers with clean records are not charged 4 times as much for their insurance, average rates are lower b/c any "profits" are re-invested. Of course, the best drivers don't get rates as low as they could with private companies. It's trade-off, but it does let things like this immobilizer requirement actually happen.
MOD PARENT UP
Yeah, I'm on your side on this one. The truth is, I'm Canadian, so we're riding the roller-coaster next to you. But the Americans have a lot further down to go. Canada has the benefit of actually being self-sufficient. If push came to shove, we have tons of space and resources and we can power and feed and build enough for ourselves.
But right now, the US is Canada's #1 trade partner. So our dollar will be tied to yours until other people can start paying us more for our exportable resources. This is actually already happening, but not in big enough numbers. When the US has to reasonably compete for imported resources from Canada, then the descent will accelerate (or Canada will become "home of the terrorists").
Either way, you're right, it's time to pay the piper and really, Canada's not far off, we just have the benefit of tons of exportable resources that we can use to help pay him off. The US has very little they can send out.
So why the hell are you not doing what you love everyday? Why do you spend your days doing stuff that doesn't fill the soul? If you really love your horse, then why don't you become a professional horse trainer? Then you can spend time with her everyday.
Sure your current job allows you to "help her have a better life.", but that doesn't mean that you couldn't give her a better life while doing something that "fills the soul". I mean, it's great to hear nuggets of wisdom like this one: "Company X, the best place in the world to work, will can your ass the moment the numbers do not add up for keeping you.", until you realize that that's pretty much how everything works out in life. (didn't take me 28 years in the field BTW) If my SO doesn't get her cut in the relationship deal she leaves, if my boss doesn't pay me enough or treat me well, I leave, if I can't carry my own weight at the company, then I get dumped, if I can't pick up the rebounds then coach benches me. It's pretty darn simple.
So I go to a job I love doing every day. And as a direct result of the fact that I love my job I'm not worried about getting canned b/c I'll find another. Just b/c some company dumps me doesn't mean that I can't find deep spiritual enjoyment in my work. Being fired doesn't mean I'm inadequate at what I do either, it's just a wrong time/place. Heck your beloved horse is going to die someday soon, probably before you will, how's that any different than getting "downsized" from a job that you love?
You may be a horse whisperer masquerading as an IT guy and for that you have my deepest sympathies. But I'm an IT guy and that's tattoed on my breast. It sounds really corny, but that's what I do, I'm not here to "die a slow death for some company", I'm here to throw in my 2 cents the best way I can find. I have loves outside of work, but I surprise the most people and do the most good in this world by solving and automating complex processes and problems. If I'm "dying" at a company, then I'm not really contributing as best as I can and it's time for me to go.
So if you're pissed off at companies and the job in general after 28 years, then you're just in the wrong field or suffering some major emotional breakdown. Cash out now, take the retirement money and go train horses. I mean, isn't that what you're saving for anyways? So that you can "retire" and spend the days with your girl? So if that's where you want to be, if that's what you're good at, if that's what you're "passionate" about, then you'll find a way to make the money from working with horses. You said it yourself, this money is just a "means to an end", so why not use your means and find an end you enjoy? Why not pick a life and then make it happen instead of picking a job and then hoping that you can find a life?
Actually, it is a fucking barter system. You have time and skills, and they trade you currency for some combination of those. Part of the deal is them trying to give you deals where they can trade you value for less dollars than it would cost you for that same value.
Now admitedly, the gym membership may seem like a flaky waste of money, but in the same respect so would parking spots or healthcare or dentalcare or "visioncare". How about 401k (or RRSP) matching plans? You may want more money, but if you're saving for retirement and the company is offering up to $200 / month tax-free (RRSP), then that's a way better deal than the $100 they can afford to give you otherwise.
Of course, by your logic (all I want is more money), "perks" like telecommuting are no good. Even though you are bartering skill and time for money, you seem to have no regard for the value of either of these.
OK I'll bite, what punishment? He hasn't been sentenced yet that doesn't happen until September 13. For maximum sentences to be doled out, the convict has to either "be an example" or have a whole bunch of things working against them (related crimes, etc). So he's probably not getting the maximum sentence.
Next you say: I am not defending him. and then follow it up with several questions that undermine any form of harsh sentencing by using subtly applying your own value judgements inside of the very questions you want us to investigate. Your questions are practically rhetorical, not even questions really. And then you throw up this line: This is just as ridiculous as an SA who once worked for a p2p service getting jail time. without even bothering to provide a supporting link or two.
Just because you can't see the impact of these "relatively innocous crimes" doesn't mean that they aren't costing millions of dollars of resources. I understand that the digital world can be hard to fathom, so take something real. Imagine that a tire company paid a group of people (call them a gang) to slash tires in parking lots. Now imagine that it wasn't just a few tires, picture that EVERY DAY this gang of individuals slashed tires on 5 or 10% of the parked cars. And what if the problem escalates? Now people are hiring parking lot security just to make sure that their tires aren't being slashed. But the gangs are creative they come up with "slashing guns" and group diversionary tactics and various other means.
Now clearly, this is relatively innocuous and it won't result in loss of life b/c you can't leave the lot with no air. So what type of prison sentence do you dole out? I mean all they did was slash tires every day for 5 years. Mostly, they just wasted people's time and cost people of bunch of money (new tires and security guards).
If you've ever paid for tires or had your tires slashed, these arguments all sound pretty weak, and they are. Just b/c this whole spam thing happens digitally doesn't mean that it doesn't cost millions of dollars and tons of effort, it just means that you're not seeing it, b/c that cost is on your monthly ISP's bills or extra overhead for your company. You've off-loaded the costs to someone else (the parking lot security) and now you're forgetting what it was like when you could just park your car.
This really sounds like they're trying to fill a problem that doesn't exist. If you need apps that satisfy the lowest common denominator, then you build a web app and suck up the time for web development. If you need a highly performant and responsive app, then you write a platform-specific forms app.
Running the whole thing through a VM just wrecks performance and still requires massive testing, plus you lose all of the OS-specific features b/c you had to code for an OS-agnostic VM. Even if it works, it's still wrong:(.
Obviously, lots of people are talking about the utility of this whole "programming kids" concept. Well, here's why it's useful: self-optimization and greater availability.
The purpose of these written programs is to make life easier. We programmers are tool builders, however, we can't capture everything at all levels. So you get tools like VBA and macro languages that let the next level of people use some of the tools.
So when we teach kids basic programming, we're teaching them how to use these tools. This is like shops class or cooking class or music class and I applaud the effort. We don't need to create a generation of programmers, in fact, that's not even the point. Having people who understand basic programming concepts is empowering to both software writers and to software users.
Programmers like to bitch about users "not knowing anything" and we're always trying to make things more "user-friendly". But at some point, users must understand the limits of the computer and the general processes. Teaching programming seems like a wonderful way to start bridging this gap.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, this seems to work both ways. Ever worked with a homebrew framework that didn't have good exception-handling or some type of passable tracing? The other end of the spectrum from these IBM Java guys are the people who still hardcode strings everywhere in the system and hand-code ALL of their stored procs and data access layer.
There are actually two problems here
From the top, Javaheads like your above description are trapped in the Enterprise way of thinking. And hey they're building apps that will process more transactions in one day than many other small business apps will ever process. They have the right to be a little proud, the problem is that they're not very good at "scoping downwards". These frameworks all scaled up and came together, but now they have 400 pages of documentation and 12 different config files and everything is interdependent b/c they didn't want to lose functionality.
Even written a good business logic layer (BLL)? Nor have I, nor have like 90%+ of programmers, but it's ok, most of them never need it. The BLL is just useless abstraction for the typical database front-end that we develop. BLL just gets smushed in with Entities and UI b/c it's pointlessly complicated to develop on all but the biggest systems.
On the flip side, you get the Principle of Least Threshold, which is my term for the phenomenon where the perception of quality is limited by the highest level quality one has experienced. There are millions of small developers out there (VB 6 was the second most-used langauge at one point), who have never worked with any thing close to these monstruous Struts frameworks. So they don't understand them and they don't need half of the functionality and they can't spend 4 months figuring out how the system works, so they just build their own system one piece at a time and keep re-creating the parts of the wheel that they actually need.
I'm living this, our Data Objects framework doesn't have tracing. Nobody cares but me, b/c I'm the only one who knows what a godsend it is to have instrumentation code. Just yesterday, wasted 2-3 hours diagnosing a problem that would've taken 10 minutes if we'd had minimal tracing (queries?).
Of course, the real solution lies between the two camps. The Javaheads with the arcane infrastructure and architecture knowledge need to enable mechanisms to scale the complexity of their frameworks. The other guys need to start pushing from the other direction. But most of all the leaders in the field need to learn to embrace differences and change (man that sounds corny).
When anyone starts spouting off about good software or bad software, they must at least identify the scale of the software with which they are working (and when was the last time we saw that). Unacceptable mistakes in an Enterprise Framework are just ignored in a 12-user system. In fact nearly every piece of code posted to the web is unacceptable in an Enterprise environment, b/c it fails to catch errors or instance tracing or define attributes or use fully qualified types or validate inputs or even comment in a way that is compatible with JavaDoc/NDoc/Sandcastle.
A twenty line class in an Enterprise app could have 80 lines of associated "overhead code" that just plugs the class into the framework. Is this elegant and beautiful or just clunky and cumbersome? That answer could vary by system size, by programmer skill or even by personal taste. But no one seems to want to acknowledge this reality. The small guys call the Enterprise guys "clunky" and they in turn call the small guys "clumsy". So in the end they just ignore each other and throw rocks in each other's general direction and nobody stands and up and says "Hey guys, it's a continuum, it's not black and white, our solutions can only be inspirations for yours."
We need new leaders. The guys in my CoDe & MSDN magazines aren't sitting around handing out three differ
I actually got a recruiter e-mail the other day for which I was basically a perfect match. I even had the soft skills they were looking for "bilingualism", training and support experience.
So I replied with the resume and comments about salary range (which wasn't listed), experience range (also not listed) and how the job listing looked very "boilerplate" and looked like a request for "bodies" and not for talent.
He replied with the list of 20 questions asking for further details. The first 8 questions were "how much experience have you had with technology XYZ"... So I replied by saying: you didn't answer my question about salary range and you asked really stupid questions, clearly this is not a job for me.
End of the day, recruiter just cost them an opportunity and never addressed any of my issues.
Well fellow /.ers, the article was pulled (anyone have an original for laughter purposes?) I'm oddly proud of the /. community for successfully cleaning cruft from the vast sludge of the internet.
If only with could do this stuff for mainstream media... like any of us bother any more :)
Man, one more reason not to own a car :(
I'm of the belief that there are two ways to protect your stuff: Insurance and Karma (not the /. kind). And a third, unsung way of "don't have stuff" :) Everything else is just "risk management": don't park in bad areas, have "enough" locks on the doors, live in a "good" area, install security systems, install security cameras.
But at the end of the day, if someone really wants to steal your stuff, they will. And, ironically, I fell strengthened by that very feeling of disempowerment.
North Dakotan, eh?
Winnipeg is just big enough to have one of everything. The Royal Winnipeg Ballet (RWB) is second only to the Canadian National Ballet and Winnipeg has Symphony Orchestra (WSO) as well. If you like theatre there are multiple companies including the MTC (Manitoba Theatre Centre), which also has a "lower-cost" venue called MTC Warehouse. There's also the Praire Theatre Exchange and a company that runs theatre targetted at kids. I say "low-cost" as top tickets to most of these events do not exceed $100 CDN and great tickets can be had in the $50-60 range.
If you like night life and clubbing most of the clubs are "teeny bars" (18-21) and are owned by the CanadInns hotel chain (unless you're 18-24, I would avoid these). Bars in the Exchange District (downtown, just North of Portage and Main) are generally higher end and better behaved. Cover is generally $5 or less and drinks range from a minimum $2.25 on special to $5-6 at the "high-end" clubs. We have some relatively strict laws in terms of pitchers and maximum drinks, so you can't order yourself a pitcher, nor can you order yourself 8 shots unless you have friends around as "targets" for the drinks :). Worth knowing if you're a drinker. If you are planning on clubbing, my suggestion would be Coyote's night club (on Pembina). They have live bands on weekends, a great 20-something crowd and an outdoor patio.
You North Dakotans have the Alerus Centre, but Winnipeggers have the recently opened MTS Centre, right downtown. The MTS Centre is one of the top 20 venues in North America, so pretty much every big show with an NA tour stops by Winnipeg (!). Winnipeggers have been starved of big shows for so long that they're selling them out quite regularly too. Last year they hosted a Raptor's pre-season game, and they host the AHL hockey team the Manitoba Moose. Downtown used to a be a hole, but between the Exchange District and the MTS centre the place is now buzzing pretty constantly.
There are tons of hotels walking distance to all of these places (theatres, Exchange, MTS centre all within a few square miles) and buses run to/from downtown until late.
If you've never seen a CFL game (yeah Canadian Football!) then it's worth checking out the Blue Bombers play at the stadium. Individual tickets range from $15 to 60/seat (cheap!) and the game itself is really entertaining. The field is wider and longer including a 20-yard end-zone. It's 3 downs and 12 a side, not 4 & 11 (as you probably know) and there is no "fair catch" rule. Instead there's always a return but the defense must provide 5 yards when the ball is picked up. For football fans it basically means that there are more changes of possession and way more scoring opportunities and games don't get "locked-up" in the 4th quarter. The talent pool is obviously smaller, but I've argued that the game is inherently more exciting (worth a watch at least).
In the summer we also have the Goldeyes baseball team that plays at "The Fishbowl" (CanWest Global Park), which was just built a few years ago. It's obviously not Major League, but tickets range from $4 to $15 (yeah 15 behind the backstop!) and the place is well-known for its mini-donuts. It also has a great Asian restaurant attached "Hu's on First" (boo :)
Popular festivals include FolkFest (lots of Pot and music at a campground) and Folklarama which features dozens of "cultural pavilions" with food and entertainment native to countries the world over. Le Festival du Voyageur is a franco-manitoban tradition that runs for a week in the dead of February and includes tons of activities: Ice sculptures, Maple Sugar Shack, frontiersman actors in an old fort, beard-growing contests, crafts, striped belts, pea soup and pancakes, dog-sled races and way more.
Restaurants abound, but popular ones include: Mitzi's (best chicken wings in town!), the Royal Crown (revolving restaurant), Hy's and Bailey's (both high-end and downtown), Earl's on Main (most beautiful servers!
In any non-legal document, I feel that emoticons are useful communication tools. We don't have easy access to some type of "vidmail", but "tone" is incredibly important in communication. It's often stated (based on studies) that 80%+ of verbal communication rests on "tone" and "body language" with only 20%- resting on actual words.
As humans, we have years of experience interpreting and understanding "tone" and "body language". To the point of even forgiving wording and phrasing based on these other factors. Truth is, we're actually pretty bad at communicating without those cues, we're just not used to writing and measuring words at face value, we're always tinging what we say with how we say it.
E-mails aggravate the complexities of communication b/c we're removing 80% of the actual human conversation. We're then leaving the other 20% to words that are often poorly defined or poorly understood (or both) and then polluting the waters with people who don't appreciate/understand the differences inherent in written communication. We've all been part of at least one office e-mail that caused us to walk over to the writer's desk and engage in verbal communication b/c the written communication was not clear or concise. We've probably all seen or written horrible technical documentation that failed to correctly convey meaning or structure or importance.
The use of emoticons help us bridge that gap (except for the technical docs). Using "smilies" to replace facial expressions helps to bring in part of that 80% that we lost when we started writing e-mails. Effective use of bold face, italics, ALL CAPS, punctuation and spacing / paragraph structure are also very important drivers in bridging that gap (as you'll note in this very post). Correct bolding and italicizing and punctuation help to fill in those little things we do when we talk: emphasize words, pause for effect, and add physical motion to what we are saying.
e.g.: something THIS BIG is clearly larger in size than something This Big. We would normally convey this with "body language", "tone" and subtle lengthening or shortening of the words. Here, I'm just hoping that capitalization and bold facing do the job.
As people improve their ability to write you'll see an expanded use of all of these tools of communication. But "smilies" (I hope) are just the beginning of our e-mail improvements.
No, no, the "hate crimes" thing was just a misinterpretation that was spread. The key concept is "incite to violence", priests can definitely voice their malcontent about homosexuals in the church or in general, you just can't tell your parishioners to kill, beat, maim or verbally abuse homosexuals. But this is pretty much the same everywhere, you can't go walking around telling people that "Arabs are bad" and that we "should jail them all", but you're not really allowed to say that anywhere in the western world.
As to the "blank media tax", it only applies to CDs (which means that DVD+-R are actually cheaper than CD-R :), but it's also helped keep the MAFIAA at bay. P2P "services" are not really in violation of the law here (AFAIK & for now). In one landmark case, the judge basically said "You can't nail this person for stealing music, they paid the blank media tax so they're allowed to grab this music and burn it on to a CD, that's what they paid the tax for."
As to the women, hey, beautiful women are everywhere :) I would personally cast my vote for Winnipeg, which is best described as a big city (750k) with a small town mentality. Filled with lots of humble, hard-working people, the women tend to follow this trend, so they're not just beautiful, they're actually approachable ;) (guess where I met my fiancé?)
I would say "Join us in Canada", but I don't know how much further that will take you. We have "more taxes", but that pretty much evens out when you factor American healthcare costs.
We have lots of parties getting votes and seats. A few of which are definitely "not" trying to fight to "be in the middle" and win all of the votes. We have more or less the same freedoms as Americans, but way (way, way) less guns and a way smaller army.
We have tons and tons and tons of space and more than enough natural resources for this lifetime. So when things start to go south for the USD (maybe too late), the CDN won't be dragged too far, b/c it's still "cashable", it still has value. Of course, it's only a matter of time before the world's biggest army annexes the world's biggest peacekeepers. At which point I guess you'll have more fresh air :(
What? Stocks = Shareholders = Part owners of the company
All Public-owned companies are beholden, by law, to act in their shareholder's best interests. When stocks are up, that means that shareholders are happy which inherently means that they're selling software.
Contrary to popular belief MS is still making lots of money. You can say that MS software sales are down, but you're too lazy (again) to even bother to look up that number, or hyperlink to any source of value.
You may not have a solid understanding of investing, or you may believe it to be some form of tea-leaves reading. But when stock value is moving up that means that lots of people think that Microsoft is going to be worth more money. And again, the number are proving that their revenue is increasing year over year.
Look you've obviously been modded up elsewhere on /. so it's unlikely that you're a complete fool, however you just walked in to a sword fight with your sharpened spoon. When you have something useful to say that isn't a waste of the very bandwidth it's using then maybe you can try again :)
OK, when you're telling me that something is completely untrue about the stock markets you can at least check the charts.
Microsoft has been consistently between ~$21 & ~$30 for the last 3 years or so. Since mid-November in 2006 they've covered that entire ground (from 21 to 30+), which means that their market cap is up. So I seriously question your "bottom line" comments b/c MS doen't seem to be suffering that much. Windows Server usage is actually moving up. And home Windows usage is likely moving sideway to "slightly" down as usual. (which is irrelevant b/c, let's face it, when you have more than 90% share in a competitive market, you basically have to go down)
So basically you managed to spout a bunch of opinions with no research and a complete failure to counter anything I've mentioned. You may believe that these flaws are impacting the bottom line of the MS OS division, but if you can't bother to at least do a Google and look up stock prices then you're just spouting fumes.
You're also not making any counters to my SAP comments. You got all in a huff about MS, but you didn't give me one good reason why a giant like SAP should be paying for security flaws. You've done nothing to help improve my understanding of reality (or anyone else's), you've done nothing to clarify the situation or attempt to even correctly grasp the problem.
So, in light of that, I think paying for flaws is actually a very good idea.
Clearly I did too, I was trying to tell you why it's not happening and you didn't listen.
I hear your anger, but it's CIO magazine, not codeproject.net. You're right, programmers are the actual generators. I have this theory I can "fallacy of management", which is the concept that managers are responsible for project delivery and are therefore "worth more" than the people that "work under them". Managers tend to be good talkers and it's very common to subscribe to the "fallacy of management", so management can actually get away with pretending that they are the most important piece of the project. (And new management grads expect top salaries)
Management in the purest sense is actually just overhead. Task assessment, delegation and tracking are all just overhead on a project and do not produce deliverables. However, IT has very few "pure managers", these people also end up being analysts and customer/sponsor relations and designers and PR for their team. Analysis and Design and Communication are all deliverable duties, so the actual goal of PM software is to let managers spend more time on deliverables and less time on overhead.
Of course, smart companies would rid themselves of people who are "only overhead" and replace them with software. But smart companies would also avoid alienating good generators by paying bonuses and inflated salaries to "managers" (we're a little short on "smart IT companies"). This hasn't happened yet, but if you look at something like Google, where they've abstracted out most of the "management duties", you'll see that IT will start to look like Engineering Consulting in the coming years. With a progression of responsibilities and less interference of management "specialists" with no relevant domain knowledge.
But we're not there yet, and probably won't be for a while. IT people are notorious for being bad communicators and seemingly bad at understanding business needs. People inherently understand that building a 100-story building is very difficult, but they don't understand why managing a database with 1 millions records and 400 tables should be all that difficult. We need to bridge that gap if we're going to legitimize IT and deliver quality projects.
Hey man, I love your "spend time on the floor" concept. I'm behind that 100%, truth is, if I could convince everyone of the importance of this, I would book in a site visit to every client we worked for. I don't think that I have that sway yet.
Of course, with Scope Creep, the biggest issue I've seen is usually the manager. Even with full-out change requests forms, I've seen managers lose stuff, or make non-transparent decisions about features. The best driver for controlling creep is having a next step. Projects don't stretch when they can't. But then you need managers with foresight and organization and five-year plans and all that crap they're paid for but often do without.
But let's face it, keeping a multi-month project plan with details for this project and the next one and all of the possible outstanding ones is a lot of hard work and not really expected, b/c that type of vision needs to come from the top and it's not normally there.
Yeah, you may be right, but there's really no reason to be bitter, this stuff happens all of the time in the software industry.
Here's a pretty extensive blog posts with some thoughts on the subject. http://gatesvp.blogspot.com/2007/07/where-do-thing s-go-wrong-in-software.html
Basic premise is that the bitterness is probably misplaced. Truth is, the guys giving "bad requirements" don't really know any better, I mean, they don't know how to program. If they knew how to program, they wouldn't need us. So that's what analysts do, they convert CEO-speak to good requirements. On smaller projects, analysts ARE programmers, but these are still two different hats.
Now the number one function of an analyst's job is to generate "good requirements" that will fit the needs of the business and that will enable the programming department to complete the job. This means separating what the client "actually wants" from what they "think they want". This means understanding "corner cases" and how data flows through and between systems. This usually means lots of drawing and meetings and pictures, etc. The sponsor usually can't do this stuff, they don't know how, they don't program, they don't think this way, that's what the analyst is there for.
Now, if you're the analyst and the "project sponsor" (eg.: manager, CEO) doesn't give this information to the analyst, then the project doesn't happen. It's actually the analyst's job to stop the project, talk to the sponsor and get things rolling again or drop the project.
You may be bitter at the CEO in the executive suite, but these problems are not their fault. These problems are solely the failure of the Analyst and/or the Project Lead. The lead on the project is responsible for protecting both the project and the team. Failure to gather appropriate requirements and to garner appropriate sponsor buy-in are both failure in protecting the team and the project. These people are therefore the target of your bitterness and ire. The person in IT who accepted the impossible task is truly to blame.
Look, there are lots of good explanations here, and personally, I'm a fan of the "bounty system". When I first saw "bounties" for Ubuntu I was overjoyed! Feeding IT people is really important for IT growth.
However, in this case, the logical flaw is actually the market, do a cost/benefit analysis. Microsoft, as a monopoly, does not make or lose any significant amount of money on OS security flaws. Companies with a budget capable of supporting security flaw bounties, don't actually need them short-term.
These big companies are publicly held and security flaw bounties do not help quarterly profits, or even annual profits (why these are important is a different issue). If I have SAP running my 10,000 employee business I can't just leave b/c SAP has too many security holes, moving is very expensive. It's probably cheaper to eat a small customer lawsuit than to switch systems. Now, if I'm really smart/motivated/scared I may move off on the next upgrade cycle, but these cycles only happen every 5-10 years. So SAP won't set up public security bounties b/c it is not beneficial to their shareholders in any way they can fathom. MS has the same deal, sure they can make the OS/DB/IIS more secure, but it must already be secure enough as nobody's leaving, right?
You have the right idea, but the impetus for broad security testing is simply not there. The only people who would "benefit" from such bounties are actually the unestablished new-comers or the competitors to monopolies (like Linux providers). With an open bounties system, these companies can use the security feature as leverage for marketing their product. But these are still very long-term deals and such a company would need to convince investors that the long-term benefits of such an action outweigh the short-term costs.
In the case of say, Linux and LAMP and PostGreSQL, we're probably there. These guys are great candidates for such open bounties. And these long-term activities are likely to pay off. Mac OS X may benefit from the same interest as they try and poach desktop/home users. But MS and SAP and other dominant players can't deliver better profits to their investors with such a system, so they won't do anything until investors get scared and start demanding one. We're not there yet.
"I think we should do that SOA thing, don't you?"
Hey, cool, management knows what SOA is! Now is the time to explain the costs of implementing and running an SOA and to give the manager a good idea of the benefits in your environment. When your boss talks about stuff like this, they typically don't have enough information to make anything other than a passing "hey that's neat comment". If you can tell them that you've been reading about SOA for 3-4 years and that you've been investigating the options, he'll think that you're both pretty smart. If you go a step further and talk about the vendor support for the systems you're using and maybe some future expansions and even some dollar numbers then maybe that manager can use your information to make some positive system changes.
As to being understaffed and "The poor people on the front lines". That's just self-loathing BS. Either you're working with your company to be succesfful or you're moving on.
If your department is understaffed, then it's your job to be talking to the boss and increase the staff or to leave b/c you're paid one salary for doing two or three jobs. If the department is understaffed and can't find new staff then they're not paying enough, don't trust their staff or they have a big black mark in the industry. They're probably not making enough money to pay people well or they're run by people who don't understand the cost of paying people well. Don't complain about these companies, take leadership and make them better or just leave them.
Hey man, if you're too lazy to or budget-constrained to set up test boxes, then at the very least wait a week for the patches to be tested by others and keep your eyes out on the appropriate boards.
But let's face it, if you have 200+ PCs and you can't spring for like 4 Test boxes (2%) then your business has serious issues. A typical 200+ PC corporate environment can have a dozen different custom vendor apps (I'm sure some will say 50). You should be testing patches for *all* of these in a closed Test environment.
If you're not doing this, it's your professional responsibility to tell your boss what's happening and to ensure that he is aware of the risks. And do this in writing! When the system goes down due to an automatic vendor patch and 100 people are left surfing the web all morning, you must have this piece of paper explaining the situation. 'Cause I'm sick of hearing people describe how "their boss is a dick" when they can't even cover their own butts.
It could even be responsible for the public's acceptance of no gold standard for the dollar. They're not demanding to know what the reference point of "one dollar" is.
I'll do you one further, as we get further and further from solidity with numbers we will get progressively worse at handling it. As we deal with less and less cash, the money we have simply has less weight. We've all seen this phenomenon, anyone who does everything with cash will typically be better at handling their money, b/c they're "handling" their money. Some "get out debt" programs actually suggest the use of cash, even over debit (which is ubiquitous here in Canada). It seems that physical cash has a psychological effect on us.
Pretty much all of our banking is now done in vaporous "numbers on a ledger", which does not lend itself to providing us with "Mass" about what the numbers mean. We have to convert this to time just to get an idea. I mean, what's $10,000? Nothing unless you think of it as two months of your time (or maybe a full year's worth of "disposable" income).
I would dare say that the lack of a "gold standard" runs just as deep (or maybe deeper still). Personally, I would love it if we froze the money supply and only added money based on birth rates. So if each Canadian had X dollars associated with them and the population increased by Y, then each year we could print XY dollars and basically kill inflation. Of course, the guys with the money (gov and banks) would not appreciate that b/c they benefit from the public buying into the illusion that today's 50k is worth more than 1980's 20k (it's not). Again with just numbers and no mass associated they can distract people.
I work at a small consulting firm that actually has better than average pay and the laid-back work environment. When I do interviews I'm typically looking for people who value stuff like flex-time, lunch-time poker and 4 monitors on their desk.
When I asked one intermediate-level interviewee about salary, he quoted a price that was clearly in the senior-level range. So I asked him for more details about what he really wanted: works hours, vacation weeks, training benefits, free pop and lunches, etc. He didn't really have an answer, 8-5, 5 days/week, couldn't care less about vacation or training time.
So I pretty much said NO at that point, but not just b/c of his high number (maybe his programming test would show that he was worth it), I said no b/c he wouldn't place any value on the benefits we do have.
The guys we currently have working here all appreciate the benefits. They're all making enough money to live (and thrive by), so the rest is really just gravy to them. We could pay them 2k they don't really need or we can make their day-to-day life much easier (bring in lunches, noon-hour poker and games, very flexible time, free pop/Red Bull/Coffee).
You sound a little bitter, but it doesn't sound like it's just the money, if you (and everyone else) is/are constantly working overtime then your company has other problems. Perks are there to help make your life easier and help with the work process. Things like child-care or catered lunches or "nap rooms" or games (for those brain breaks) are there to help productivity and reduce stress. But if you have a pool table in the lunch room that nobody uses b/c everyone thinks you're a slacker while you're on it, then it's not really a Perk.
So when I interview, that's why I ask questions. If you don't care about the ability to come in "late" and avoid traffic, then the perks we're giving you have no value, so we won't be able to meet your expectations. If you're company is giving you perks so you can work longer, then they're really missing the point. I want to give you perks so that you can worry less.
OK, let's get some details straight here (Winnipeger here), this has been in the works for a couple of years, with a few really important factors guiding the process.
So the basic goal here is to slow down the joy-riding. They anti-theft devices they are installing require both the car key AND the little key fob. Contrary to some espoused opinions, they do indeed go through the process of re-wiring the starter through the device and they specifically install a red blinking light on the dashboard as a "hey-we're-protected" marker.
Yeah it doesn't stop the "steal they key" method, but that wasn't the problem. It doesn't stop the computer + hot-wire method, but that wasn't the problem either. It doesn't stop people from smashing and grabbing stuff, but hey, that wasn't the problem either. The goal is to make it more difficult to steal cars and it's going to work.
Now as to the whole "public" insurance thing, it has some serious benefits. Accidents are resolved quickly and everyone involved is taken care of (it's a government responsibility), young drivers with clean records are not charged 4 times as much for their insurance, average rates are lower b/c any "profits" are re-invested. Of course, the best drivers don't get rates as low as they could with private companies. It's trade-off, but it does let things like this immobilizer requirement actually happen.
MOD PARENT UP Yeah, I'm on your side on this one. The truth is, I'm Canadian, so we're riding the roller-coaster next to you. But the Americans have a lot further down to go. Canada has the benefit of actually being self-sufficient. If push came to shove, we have tons of space and resources and we can power and feed and build enough for ourselves. But right now, the US is Canada's #1 trade partner. So our dollar will be tied to yours until other people can start paying us more for our exportable resources. This is actually already happening, but not in big enough numbers. When the US has to reasonably compete for imported resources from Canada, then the descent will accelerate (or Canada will become "home of the terrorists"). Either way, you're right, it's time to pay the piper and really, Canada's not far off, we just have the benefit of tons of exportable resources that we can use to help pay him off. The US has very little they can send out.
So why the hell are you not doing what you love everyday? Why do you spend your days doing stuff that doesn't fill the soul? If you really love your horse, then why don't you become a professional horse trainer? Then you can spend time with her everyday.
Sure your current job allows you to "help her have a better life.", but that doesn't mean that you couldn't give her a better life while doing something that "fills the soul". I mean, it's great to hear nuggets of wisdom like this one: "Company X, the best place in the world to work, will can your ass the moment the numbers do not add up for keeping you.", until you realize that that's pretty much how everything works out in life. (didn't take me 28 years in the field BTW) If my SO doesn't get her cut in the relationship deal she leaves, if my boss doesn't pay me enough or treat me well, I leave, if I can't carry my own weight at the company, then I get dumped, if I can't pick up the rebounds then coach benches me. It's pretty darn simple.
So I go to a job I love doing every day. And as a direct result of the fact that I love my job I'm not worried about getting canned b/c I'll find another. Just b/c some company dumps me doesn't mean that I can't find deep spiritual enjoyment in my work. Being fired doesn't mean I'm inadequate at what I do either, it's just a wrong time/place. Heck your beloved horse is going to die someday soon, probably before you will, how's that any different than getting "downsized" from a job that you love?
You may be a horse whisperer masquerading as an IT guy and for that you have my deepest sympathies. But I'm an IT guy and that's tattoed on my breast. It sounds really corny, but that's what I do, I'm not here to "die a slow death for some company", I'm here to throw in my 2 cents the best way I can find. I have loves outside of work, but I surprise the most people and do the most good in this world by solving and automating complex processes and problems. If I'm "dying" at a company, then I'm not really contributing as best as I can and it's time for me to go.
So if you're pissed off at companies and the job in general after 28 years, then you're just in the wrong field or suffering some major emotional breakdown. Cash out now, take the retirement money and go train horses. I mean, isn't that what you're saving for anyways? So that you can "retire" and spend the days with your girl? So if that's where you want to be, if that's what you're good at, if that's what you're "passionate" about, then you'll find a way to make the money from working with horses. You said it yourself, this money is just a "means to an end", so why not use your means and find an end you enjoy? Why not pick a life and then make it happen instead of picking a job and then hoping that you can find a life?
Actually, it is a fucking barter system. You have time and skills, and they trade you currency for some combination of those. Part of the deal is them trying to give you deals where they can trade you value for less dollars than it would cost you for that same value.
Now admitedly, the gym membership may seem like a flaky waste of money, but in the same respect so would parking spots or healthcare or dentalcare or "visioncare". How about 401k (or RRSP) matching plans? You may want more money, but if you're saving for retirement and the company is offering up to $200 / month tax-free (RRSP), then that's a way better deal than the $100 they can afford to give you otherwise.
Of course, by your logic (all I want is more money), "perks" like telecommuting are no good. Even though you are bartering skill and time for money, you seem to have no regard for the value of either of these.
I mean, the punishment seems a little excessive.
OK I'll bite, what punishment? He hasn't been sentenced yet that doesn't happen until September 13. For maximum sentences to be doled out, the convict has to either "be an example" or have a whole bunch of things working against them (related crimes, etc). So he's probably not getting the maximum sentence.
Next you say: I am not defending him. and then follow it up with several questions that undermine any form of harsh sentencing by using subtly applying your own value judgements inside of the very questions you want us to investigate. Your questions are practically rhetorical, not even questions really. And then you throw up this line: This is just as ridiculous as an SA who once worked for a p2p service getting jail time. without even bothering to provide a supporting link or two.
Just because you can't see the impact of these "relatively innocous crimes" doesn't mean that they aren't costing millions of dollars of resources. I understand that the digital world can be hard to fathom, so take something real. Imagine that a tire company paid a group of people (call them a gang) to slash tires in parking lots. Now imagine that it wasn't just a few tires, picture that EVERY DAY this gang of individuals slashed tires on 5 or 10% of the parked cars. And what if the problem escalates? Now people are hiring parking lot security just to make sure that their tires aren't being slashed. But the gangs are creative they come up with "slashing guns" and group diversionary tactics and various other means.
Now clearly, this is relatively innocuous and it won't result in loss of life b/c you can't leave the lot with no air. So what type of prison sentence do you dole out? I mean all they did was slash tires every day for 5 years. Mostly, they just wasted people's time and cost people of bunch of money (new tires and security guards).
If you've ever paid for tires or had your tires slashed, these arguments all sound pretty weak, and they are. Just b/c this whole spam thing happens digitally doesn't mean that it doesn't cost millions of dollars and tons of effort, it just means that you're not seeing it, b/c that cost is on your monthly ISP's bills or extra overhead for your company. You've off-loaded the costs to someone else (the parking lot security) and now you're forgetting what it was like when you could just park your car.
This really sounds like they're trying to fill a problem that doesn't exist. If you need apps that satisfy the lowest common denominator, then you build a web app and suck up the time for web development. If you need a highly performant and responsive app, then you write a platform-specific forms app.
Running the whole thing through a VM just wrecks performance and still requires massive testing, plus you lose all of the OS-specific features b/c you had to code for an OS-agnostic VM. Even if it works, it's still wrong :(.
Obviously, lots of people are talking about the utility of this whole "programming kids" concept. Well, here's why it's useful: self-optimization and greater availability.
The purpose of these written programs is to make life easier. We programmers are tool builders, however, we can't capture everything at all levels. So you get tools like VBA and macro languages that let the next level of people use some of the tools.
So when we teach kids basic programming, we're teaching them how to use these tools. This is like shops class or cooking class or music class and I applaud the effort. We don't need to create a generation of programmers, in fact, that's not even the point. Having people who understand basic programming concepts is empowering to both software writers and to software users.
Programmers like to bitch about users "not knowing anything" and we're always trying to make things more "user-friendly". But at some point, users must understand the limits of the computer and the general processes. Teaching programming seems like a wonderful way to start bridging this gap.