| last updated:06 Aug 2003 15:14 UK time |
 |
| JOS Statistics - Recent Comments (Comments added for week ending Sun 12 Jan 2003) | View Other Weeks |
| The Gilmore Girls an Advertising Trojan Horse?! | Sun 12 Jan | Walter Rumsby |
| http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/12/1041990180783.html To see how far below the line marketers will go, take TVs The Gilmore Girls - or dont, if you want to avoid a barrage of ads tailored to the series. The United States show about a young single mother and her teenage daughter was devised by a coalition of multinationals that believed there was nothing on air that provided the perfect platform for their ads. Say it aint so! |
| Sun 12 Jan | Wei | i just wonder if it kinda contradicts the purpose of you know - advertising - when it's far more subtle and maybe 50% - arbitrary figure - of the people don't know it's supposed to be one? |
| Sun 12 Jan | A Software Build Guy | All commercial Television could be considered a 'Trojan': A group of advertisers basically have to buy in that a show will reach there chosen demographic and represent them in a way they can live with. Now that means a producer has to sell not only the network on the new show but also have a prospectus for advertisers to prove there demographic. If what you quoted is true then this is just the logical end for commercial entertainment, where a group of advertisers pay a group of artists to develop a show for a target demographic and do massive product placement. In fact, it would surprise me if this did not happen. Movies are already massive product placement ads. I don’t watch much television anymore; it seems to be just on long commercial with some sorted titillating bits to keep me coming back for more commercials:-/. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Albert D. Kallal | Gee, is this new? The word 'soaps' comes from the fact that venders of soap products needed shows to sell their products. Albert D. Kallal Edmonton, Alberta Canada kallal@msn.com |
| Sun 12 Jan | Chi Lambda | 'Back to the Future' ( http://us.imdb.com/Title?0088763 ) was on TV over the weekend and it was the first time I had seen the movie in about 10 years. Although I liked it a lot (as always) I noticed for the first time how many product placements there are. This film in particular seems to set the record. Just off the top of my head I can remember the following that I saw: - Pepsi - Burger King - Toyota - California Raisens - Valtera (skateboards) - Calvin Klein (ad?) - Mr. Coffee - DeLorean (ad?) - Miller bear - Texaco Maybe this, like banner ads on the Web, are the price we pay for free content. |
| Mad | Sun 12 Jan | PC |
| Do you ever feel angry at unappreciative clients? This is what happened: My client is the manager of the advertising department at company X. He intends to buy a commercial product from High Price Solutions for $250k, maybe next year. In the mean time I was asked to develop a low-cost solution they can start using while waiting for approval to buy the HPS product. My application uses only open source software, and therefore I have been able to develop something relatively quickly without charging too much. The other day the company X manager got really angry when I showed him my demo. He said How come this can already do almost everything we need, and its so inexpensive? I told him its because Im using free software, which made him even madder. (My partner told me I never should have said the software was free.) This isnt the first time I have worked hard on a project and then felt unappreciated. But it is the first time a client got angry because I got the job done too fast and charged too little. Any similar experiences? |
| Sun 12 Jan | crusty admin | Ask him what part of saving money pisses him off so. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Cheers | And stop writing cheap, good software, I've got a big mortgage, and people like you just make it harder to make a big dollar. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Sam Gray | What, Cheers, you missed the thread about nobody being entitled to a job? (= |
| Sun 12 Jan | S.C. | The following is just my guess. So what is the manager supposed to tell his supervisor? 'Hey, I was going to waste $250k to buy an expensive piece of software because I knew nothing about computers. I didn't know it'd be done with a much lower cost using open source software and freeware. Buying the expensive software is a big mistake and I should be fired. 'The job market is so terrible; definitely you can find a more competent guy to replace me with a even lower salary. Thank you.' |
| Sun 12 Jan | PC | I realize he was mad because he knows he is not qualified to make a decision about software, and is afraid he made a mistake wasting $250k. I just thought some might find it amusing. I also wonder how common it is. I've had lots of experiences with clients being utterly unimpressed with things that required knowledge and a lot of hard work. No matter how much intelligence you program into your application, it still is not as smart as your clients (however incredibly dumb they might be). Therefore, nothing you do can ever impress them. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Wei | Well... it just goes to show that YOU can save the company money, and he can't! =) |
| Sun 12 Jan | crusty admin | Another solution up your price. |
| Sun 12 Jan | J. D. Trollinger | Clients are usually total fools. Sometimes their foolishness works in your favor. Sometimes it doesn't. Just shrug and chalk it up to fate. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Charlotte C. | Yes, you should definitely jack up your price. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Herbert Sitz | 'He said 'How come this can already do almost everything we need, and it's so inexpensive?' . . . This isn't the first time I have worked hard on a project and then felt unappreciated. But it is the first time a client got angry because I got the job done too fast and charged too little.' I guess there's something I don't quite follow. If he sees your cheap, fast solution and he gets mad, then he's not getting mad at you. He's getting mad at the vendors of the expensive solution or idiots within his own company who were recommending the expensive solution. What makes you think he was mad at you? I guess you could be disappointed because his reaction was to get mad at the expensive vendor, and not to be grateful to you. You might try a subtle method of suggesting gratefulness as appropriate reaction: 'Well, sir, don't get to mad at them. They're burdened by a big overhead and they're probably using sub-par programmers with low-quality tools. I can offer you a great inexpensive solution because I'm a genius who works by myself, and I like to pass the savings on to my clients.' |
| Joel's XUL fears corroborated | Sun 12 Jan | Nick Hebb |
| Reading an article, Linux GUI Application Development for Windows Programmers ( http://http://xminc.com/linux/wxpython.html ), I came across this quote the author included from a mailling list: >>>>>>>>>>QUOTE>>>>>>>>>>> I can corroborate your conclusions. The are some additional drawbacks to XUL that arent apparent until you have developed a significant XUL code-base. I spent a year and half developing a very large, commercial application based on XUL. Initially, XUL seemed to be a very attractive solution (and I believe that it still is for small applications). However, the way that the behavior of an XUL application is mixed with UI layout specification makes it very challenging to maintain clean, understandable code. Consequently, the level of development effort was much higher than I had expected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>END QUOTE>>>>>>>>>> It makes me think - how many of you are technophiles that like to try out the latest technology versus how many of you are more conservative and let others beta test it first? |
| Sun 12 Jan | Ian Stallings | Good question. I find myself developing applications using Mono (http://go-mono.org) trying to see how it stacks up against the MS .net framework. So I guess I would consider myself on the side of experimentation and trying out the latest technology. But before I start down a road I usually take the time to evaluate if I think it will be worth while. Since time is the rarity in my life I like to focus on learning new technology that I think will benefit me most. Technology that I think will add value to my skillset and make me a better programmer. |
| Sun 12 Jan | olsson | I usually let others try it out throughly before taking the leap. I'm thinking about trying Windows C++ development when VC++ .NET 2003 is released, I've heard good things about it and it seems like C++ has some potential :-) And no, I wasn't trying to be funny. |
| Sun 12 Jan | pb | I think most developers outside of Mozilla are staying safely away from XUL. |
| SQL question | Sun 12 Jan | SQL Beginner |
| Hi all, Sorry to ask such a basic and specific SQL question on this forum. I know that this forum is for general software related topics. But I dont belong to lot of forums online. It will be of great help if any of you able to help me. I have an MS-Access table with some memo and text fields. I have to design a query which searches these fields for some keywords. I have 10 keywords and I want the query to return records, if the record contains any 5 of those 10 keywords (if 50% of the keywords are present). Is this possible to do in just MS-Access? I know it will be possible if I am calling this table using some VB or Java or C++ program. I can pass one keyword at a time and then use some sort of count function and then display the records if the count is more than 5 or something. But can i do something like this just in MS-Access or is there a better or simpler way to do this? Thank you very much for all your inputs. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Stephen Jones | You could do an access query that would work by listing (using OR) all the possible combinationds of five keywords but you'd sure have to like typing! It shouldn't be too difficult to do in VBA (that is to say within Access) using a counter as you mentioned,but I'll leave the exact details to those with more experience. Incidentally, these kinds of questions can be well answered on the ZDNet MSOffice forum (give my regards to Dan Vlas and Jethro UK if you do enqiuire there) and Woodys Office lounge www.wopr.com Slightly more advanced is the VISBAS beginners forum http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/visbas-beginners.html Best of Luck |
| Sun 12 Jan | Ged Byrne | SQL Beginner, Access has a useful feature where you can call a VBA function from your sql statement. So if you open a module and created a function called ItContainsWhatIWant that does all of the complex logic you then have your sql looks something like this: Select * from table where ItContainsWhatIWant(col1, col2, col3) = true. You'll have to pass your fields as paramaters. This simplifies your sql code quite a bit, but does tie your database to Access. You would have trouble if, for example, you decided to move to SQL server. Still if you were moving to SQL Server, you could use the full text indexes anyway. Performance wise, this is a lot slower than pure SQL but quicker than pure VBA. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Albert D. Kallal | There is a zillion ms-access sites on the web. I would use Usenet, and the ms-access hiricary from Microsoft is probably one of the busiest sections of their newsgroups. Try: Microsoft.public.acceess.GettngStarted Another good newsgroup for ms-access questons is Comp.databases.ms-access I will take crack at this: My first question is how large of file are we likely to work with? If the file is small, then just write the SQL. It will not run fast, but you don’t say how large the data file is. If it is small, like a 1000 records, then just use a straight wild card search. No index will occur..but it will work. Select bla,bla,bla where ( (MyMemoField Like “*keyword1*”) + _ (MyMemoField Like “*keyword2*”) + _ (MyMemoField Like “*keyword3*”) + _ (MyMemoField Like “*keyword5*”) + _ (MyMemoField Like “*keyword6*”) + _ (MyMemoField Like “*keyword7*”) + _ (MyMemoField Like “*keyword8*”) + _ etc. ) <= -5 Each of the above conditions will evaluate to 0, or -1 (true). Hence, 5 or more matches will result a value of = -5. As mentioned, JET does NOT have a text indexing option, and thus the above will run very slow. It is a code free solution. I would probably create a user defined function and use that in place of the above. I will say that one real cool feature of ms-access is that you can write and use VB functions in your sql. At risk of sounding a bit off, I wish sql-server used VB for it’s programming language in place of t-sql!!! Albert D. Kallal Edmonton, Alberta Canada Kallal@msn.com |
| Sun 12 Jan | SQL Beginner | Thanks for all your inputs. This a small MS-Access table and I need to use this query only one time. So Albert's simple solution worked perfectly fine. Thank you Albert! |
| Joel on Software Forum - statistics | Sun 12 Jan | Ian Stallings |
| I was searching google and came across this site: http://www.usabilitymustdie.com/jos/WW_All_Members.html A site showing all the total posts to this site. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Stephen Jones | Didn't know there was a league. I'll just have to give up on the pseudonyms. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Stephen Jones | What other sites does the guy keep statistics on, and why? Having looked through his site and the links I am tempted to repeat the phrase Joel hates so much - 'they just don't get it'. Usability gurus are not taking movie and multi-media total experience web sites into account. Yea, connect to them with a 40Kbps modem connection and the experience consists of waiting for the movie to buffer and you'll see why. They don't concern themselves with 'creativity' and good graphic design skills. No reason why they should. You get the framework and the navigation worked out OK, and then if you've got good taste the design will look great, and if you haven't it still will because you'll go out and hire somebody who has got it. I could go on, but we'll leave it for another day. |
| Sun 12 Jan | one programmer's opinion | Yeah, I found that site a couple of months ago via Google as well. Do I find those links useful? Not really since they are archived postings. Now having said this, I have to admit that I have read several archived posts. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Ged Byrne | Chris McEnvoy set it up a while back, and posted to let us know. Its part of some study he's doing. http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=13670&ixReplies=15 I'm surprised to see I'm still at the top - I've been trying to cut down :) |
| recruiter e-mail | Sat 11 Jan | SR |
| Hi, Just got an e-mail from a recruiter, saw my resume on workopolis, wants to talk to me and discuss as soon as possible, but did not mention the topic. I guess I wont be talking till after the weekend.I dont have much experience dealing with recruiters.Anybody get any of these types of mails from recruiters?Does it mean it could be an opportunity, or is this standard type of mails sent by recruiters? |
| Sat 11 Jan | Eric Moore | My experience has been that most recruiters are too busy (even if they are not productive/successfull) to worry about basic courtesy (like telling you what they want to talk about). |
| Sat 11 Jan | Won't Work With Recruiters | Don't expect much, if anything, from contact from a recruiter. Recruiters are shallow. They are the types that beat up the smart kids on the playground, grown up as adults. They don't care what you know or what you can do. They can and they will abuse you in order to profit themselves. What they do for a living is collect money from the client company in exchange for finding the cheapest acceptable candidate for a position. Recruiters will blow you all kinds of hot air. Most these days are simply collecting resumes, most have no jobs, and almost none of them have any sort of special relationship with their client company despite their claims. Most recruiters are basically liars. They may be useful for your purposes but distrust everything they say. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Chad R. Millen | I have had very positive experiences with recruiters. I have been offered at least 3 excellent opportunities because of the hard work of a placement agency. It would seem as though my experience is not the norm, based on the responses here. So, in short keep an open mind, but be aware that there are some unscrupulous agents out there. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Tony E | Be very wary of giving them references, they see your references as potential clients. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Jeff MacDonald | In my experience, recruiters (as a whole) are similar to police officers in Los Angeles - there are pleny of good, hard-working people out there, but a small percentage of them have done such shitty things to people that it's really easy to lump them all into one category. Be skeptical, but don't write someone off 'just because' they're a recruiter. You may get lucky and find a good one that will really help your carreer. |
| Sat 11 Jan | SR | But generally, if a recruiter contacts you, does it mean there is a genuine opportunity? |
| Sat 11 Jan | Jeff MacDonald | I have received emails that are, quite cleary, bulk messages sent out in an effort to harvest resumes/email addresses, but that hasn't happened for a while. Sometimes you can tell from the email whether or not it's spam, but other times you can't tell until you contact the person and they have no idea who you are, what you do or why you're calling them. Keep in mind that work is tight for a lot of people these days. It wouldn't be prudent to ignore a (possibly) legit email because it 'might' me spam. A phone call to the recruiter will take, what, 5-10 minutes out of your day? It's definitely worth the time to follow-up with them on Monday, IMO. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Anonymous Coward | Yes, there is probably a an opening. Unfortunately there is also very little chance that you want it.
A recruiter has hundreds if not thousands of resumes available. If he is contacting a stranger then there is something difficult to fill about the position. If he sounds enthusiastic then he is trying to generate excitement in you so that you will overlook the flaws.
When a recruiter has good opportunities you must pursue them. When they start looking for you either they are desperate or you have some unique skill.
On four times I have been contacted unexpectedly by head hunters, each a silly story:
First, 25+ years ago, a Sunday night 8pm, the phone rings.
'This is xxx from yyy agency. I've got a position for you. Can you be at an interview at 8am tomorrow?'
'OK. Where is it?'
' |
| Sat 11 Jan | Won't Work With Recruiters | OK, more assertions to back up my general animosity toward recruiters. First - pay attention to the accounts posted here of recruiters talking up positions that are non-fits. I had my own stories, but I knew that someone else would easily post stuff to outdo my own material. Secondly, be extremely skeptical about providing references to recruiters. Many recruiters these days use the lists of managers and their companies that candidates provide for their own sales purposes. The easiest way to get a good reference to refuse to speak for you is to allow them to get bombarded by recruiters making sales pitches to them. Third - recruiters are NOT there to help your career. If they say so they are flat out lying. They are there to make a buck for themselves. Fourth - I dispute the assertion that recruiters are similar to a police department's crew. Quite the opposite. My experience has been that most agency recruiters are shallow nitwits and are not terribly honest or forthcoming. The ones with good character who mean well are exceptions, at least from the standpoint of the candidate's interests. Fifth - recruiters ARE looking at a very thin market and some excellent analyses have been posted to this thread. The jobs that crooters are pushing are the jobs that there is *something* the matter with - either a bad employer, or a bad location, or a low salary, or lousy work. Basically, if the position is good, the company will have *NO* problem filling it in this economy. The rest of the open positions are handled by recruiters. Basically, to put it in context - think of the worst you've heard of lawyers and of used car salesmen, and combine the attributes into one person. THAT is an agency technical recruiter, in the majority of cases. Dishonest, manipulative, condescending, player of head games, and as far away from your best interests as you can get, THAT'S a recruiter. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Stay Away | I have only ever had bad experiences dealing with recruiters. I have never managed to find a job using them yet they like to present themselves as the sole gateway to employment. Only ever talk to a recuiter as an absolute last resort, they are not your friend, they are not interested in finding a suitable job match. They have no problems lying to present any lousy job as your dream job. It's all about finding warm bodies to fill cubicles. I'm willing to believe there are some that are good but I've never met any. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Tj | I've met a quality recruiter in SF, though I've never actually worked for any in the end. They used to be called Trilogy, though I heard on fuckedcompany they changed their name to something disturbing like 'Thinknicity.' Very intelligent; though I had experience with other languages, they astutely pointed out that a Python job was the best to go for. The one other recruiter I've met was the complete opposite, with people who just didn't want to work there. I almost would have wanted to work with Trilogy/Thinknicity, since it was obvious how bad some of these work farms were. |
| Sun 12 Jan | anon | My experience has been bad. Around 12-15 resumes, i have sent but no response |
| Sun 12 Jan | anonQAguy | Looks like I'm out of the norm here, but I have generally not had bad experiences with recruiters, though it's been over 2 years since I've been on the market. Might be different now. I would say, however, that if you do happen to come across a good recruiter, one you trust to tell you straight, one who gets to know you well enough to counsel you about how to handle a particular interview, and who's not simply a biological regex like so many are, then you might want to keep that guy's number at hand in the future--you've found yourself a gem. I've come across a guy like that and actively maintain contact with him, though I'm not currently on the market. Especially if the guy's been able to place you (and therefore get his fee) once or twice before, then he knows you're marketable and he's likely to work a bit harder for you. Anyway, I can't counter anybody's recommendations of caution in dealing with recruiters, so do be careful. Best of luck to you. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Stephen Jones | 'My experience has been bad. Around 12-15 resumes, i have sent but no response ' That's not bad experience of recruiters; that's no experience. |
| Sun 12 Jan | | one thing to avoid: if they ask inocently 'have you been applying for other jobs?', tell them flatly 'no'. If you say yes, even if you say it isn't their business, they will worm it out of you. You see, any job you get that isn't via them, they won't get a commission for. If they can find out who else you've applied for. And there might be an opportunity for them to place one of their other candidates there, so they'll probably cold call and offer some resumes to that lead you've just given them. And this means you to have no options but to take a placement they offer, so it is win-win for them. This nasty trick was told to me by a drunk recruiter who is actually a nice girl away from work; but I'd never be placed by her professionally! |
| Sun 12 Jan | Must be a manager | No. Generic contact by a recruiter means nothing. He probably thought you might have some marketable qualities which would make it easy for him to convince someone to hire you, thus earning him a commission. The other part of his job is to get you to accept a low rate ( if it's a contract) so he gets more profit, and to get you to change jobs. If he was trying to sell you a used car, what would you think? It's the same deal. |
| Sun 12 Jan | sedwo | Personally, I've lost faith in recruiters and do not trust them. All they do is raise my hopes and leave me hanging. I've had recruiters contact me of Monster and Workopolis; and they are all talk. The truth of the matter is that there is nobody better to seek and hunt down a job then yourself. I've had recruiters send my resume to a certain company with no effect. But when *I* sent in my resume, instant response. I think recruiters are marketing people who couldn't get a real job in their industry. Once after you've dealt with many recruiters, you'll understand their tactics and their real worth. But give them a chance to talk; there still might be something to learn from them. Don't be afraid to interrogate them as they do you. Good luck. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Peter Hutchinson | I believe in doing the work of the recruiter myself (I am a programmer). I am the best marketer and leverage point for my career. Cold calling can help you build a network of friends and contacts when times get tough. |
| Sun 12 Jan | SR | Considering all these posts, has anybody found any work through recruiters? |
| Sun 12 Jan | Peter Hutchinson | Three times I have found work through recruiters. A recruiter typically works for the client company, so unless they are on retainer (which they usually aren't) you have nothing to gain by using them. You are better off calling the company yourself. You can get lucky (like I did) and find a placement, but don't count on it. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Bob Greene | My 2nd job was obtained via recruiter. |
| Where'd all the Young Programmers go? | Fri 10 Jan | Vincent Marquez |
| I remember when I got my firt tech job (senior year of high school, a pidly 20 bucks an hour), I was one of many really young kids who had a tech job (wether it was coding, html, network admin). Im 20 now, and it seems like all the other young programmers died off or something. when I was 18, most people wernt too suprised to see teens in the office place. Now I hear it all the time. My company needed an html guy, so I thought id scoure my old high school. Talked to a lot of people, no such luck. What happened? Did the young programmer become extinct? are they all playing quake? Studying instead of working? |
| Fri 10 Jan | Dim | Maybe programming is no longer 'cool'. |
| Fri 10 Jan | ODN | $20 an hour for a first tech job in high school is not pidly. My first job involving programming was at age 21, year '99, and I was getting paid $9.75 an hour in a 'student' job, the highest the school paid for student jobs. Yes, this was in the good ol' U.S. of A. My first real programming job started at $14.50/hr but a year later I was at $20/hr (same job), and climbing fairly rapidly from there. Anyway, back to the topic, I too noticed a lot of young kids in tech positions in the various places I worked in my younger days. A lot of them seemed to be there for the 'happening' cultural aspect. Some of them thrived fairly well that way. Being in a college town, there were a fair number of young (cheap) faces at smaller businesses, start-ups, and in staff positions at the university. I think the lack of young faces these days is partly due to me not being as in touch with the 'scene' as I was in my teens and college years. But I think a lot of them were just bubble-riders who went elsewhere when the bubble culture collapsed. I've run into a few young guys who still have that 'start a dot-com on a shoestring' mindset, but they're pretty rare now. When there was a bunch of hype in the air, it was easy for kids to learn stuff without realizing how much effort it took. But now, it's just hard work that may not even be rewarded, and the culture doesn't have the momentum to help carry them through any more. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Young smartass | Some wealthy old Spaniards found that the glands of teen programmers are an aphrodisiac. Sadly, they've been hunted nearly to extinction since then. You're lucky to have escaped. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Mr. Peabody | Take an economics course and then a psychology course and you'l l understand. |
| Sat 11 Jan | one programmer's opinion | Vincent Marquez wrote, 'I'm 20 now, and it seems like all the other young programmers died off or something. ' Is this post meant to be a joke? Trust me, you are still very young. '...when I was 18, most people wern't too suprised to see teens in the office place' For me it goes something like this -- three years ago when I was 35, most people weren't too surprized to see a lot of young twenty something techies working in the office. '...are they all playing quake? Studying instead of working?' I sure hope so. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Ged Byrne | Has anybody noticed the increased quality of the average web site. Surely not related. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Stephen Jones | 'Has anybody noticed the increased quality of the average web site.' No! What I have noticed is the increasing number of web sites that use Javascript for the links and thus don't work at all when you right cilck to open in a new window or centre click to open in a new tab. Must be something to do with web designers having been replaced with programmers, who'd put code in a recipe for tomato ketchup given half the chance! |
| Sat 11 Jan | HeyMacarana | 'What I have noticed is the increasing number of web sites that use Javascript for the links and thus don't work at all when you right cilck to open in a new window or centre click to open in a new tab.' I absolutely hate that when it happens. This should go on the list of one of the top things NOT to do when designing links. |
| Sat 11 Jan | X. J. Scott | 'web sites that use Javascript for the links and thus don't work at all' I'll third the hatred for this tactic. But is there any reason whatsoever to do something so foolish or are the designers of these sites just plain stupid. Surely they must realize that many customers with money to by products are also intelligent enough to have figured out that turning Javascript out makes yourbrowser crash less and stops popups... |
| Sat 11 Jan | Jeff MacDonald | 'But is there any reason whatsoever to do something so foolish....' Yeah, I've done that before - but only on Intranet sites. I'd never do it on a public site. Very simply, I'll use script to open a link when, for example, you're dynamically generating parameters on a parent page (using a mix of server and client script) and you want a child window to pop-up so you can collect information to pass back down to the parent window based on the parent window stuff and the child window stuff combined(without doing a bunch of page reloads). That might not make much sense, but it makes a browser feel more like a Windows application, which really makes Intranet users happier / more comfortable (in my company's environment, anyway). |
| Sat 11 Jan | A_Young_Fella_001 | Everquest. ^_^. |
Sat 11 Jan | Philip Dickerson | 'What I have noticed is the increasing number of web sites that use Javascript for the links and thus don't work at all when you right cilck to open in a new window or centre click to open in a new tab.' I absolutely hate that when it happens. This should go on the list of one of the top things NOT to do when designing links.It's number 6 in Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, December 23, 2002: Top Ten Web-Design Mistakes of 2002: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html |
| Sat 11 Jan | X. J. Scott | Thanks, I'm with you completely - intranets are definitely a whole different world and there it makes sense to do whatever works and can enforce that everyone using it keeps scripting enabled. The scripting can be ok on a website too as long as the site is designed to still work fine when javascript is off. But if there isn't time or expertise to do both then it's probably best to just go with the straight links rather than to have a site that fails completely when javascript is disabled; particularly any site selling products. |
| Sun 12 Jan | europe | 'Where'd all the Young Programmers go?' definitely true. Being from the generation that was studying before the boom went bust, I saw this first hand. When I studied I was also a contractor. Most people reading CS had ok tech jobs too. Now, I think only a handful from the course (who passed btw) have jobs in the trade. Some are even unemployed. I guess when the bubble burst, the first to go were those of questional value, and experience = value IMHO '..the increasing number of web sites that use Javascript for the links..' reminds me of something I read about ASP.NET using hyperlinks for form submission, http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html Is the javascript hyperlink going to become more common? I don't have any ASP.NET websites to do a quick check of... |
| Sun 12 Jan | Vincent Marquez | Ged Byrne: Actually, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Seems like 3 years ago, any company was willing to hire someone with HTML on their resume to do websites, knowing they could pay 14 bucks an hour, and bill out at 100. Now days, companies wanting websites expect quality, clean code, modulartiy, etc. The 17 year old html junky just doesn't cut it. (unless he is very good). |
| Design patterns | Wed 08 Jan | Wei |
| Ive been reading quite a bit about design patterns, namely software design patterns, interface design patterns and concurrent communication patterns. I feel that in writing these books, along with making v. good source code available online, the authors are pursueing a very noble course indeed: to improve software... =) i.e: for those readers who actually make use of them in their projects of course... hehe Opinions anybody? |
| Thu 09 Jan | X. J. Scott | It's true. All of it. Anything else you wanted here? |
| Thu 09 Jan | SM | Wei, let me let you in on a couple of secrets of the industry early in your career. Neither creating software nor writing about it (even well) are any more noble than flipping burgers at the corner fast-food outlet. Computer Science is neither science nor programming. Software engineering is a marketing term(kind of like .NET) invented some decades ago that stuck. But really it has absolutely nothing to do with engineering. There are a few others but you'll learn them eventually. |
| Thu 09 Jan | sedwo | SM said, 'Neither creating software nor writing about it (even well) are any more noble than flipping burgers at the corner fast-food outlet.' I disagree with such an analogy. Not that I'm big on 'status' or gaining nobility points. But creative software solutions that utilize the computer as a tool to help solve real problems can definately achieve better value than flipping the biggest burger. The really great programmer's I've met exude an excitement and passion for working with software, to mold and construct, and apply complex forms of logic and thought into a somewhat tangible creation. The nobility stems from these individuals which must contain some level of high moral qualities in their work. Since they also most probably have a greater impact on the world around them then the lonely person flipping a burger. Sharing your source code and knowledge with the community puts you out to be an easy target. It can take some courage to show the world what you've done. Most people choose not to. To aid in the progress of the community as a whole, by contributing your work, is IMHO a benevolent gesture. That's exactly how the community of pure science operates. |
| Thu 09 Jan | SM | sedwo - I think we have somewhat different definitions of noble. In the last several years I have been answering questions, writing sample code, etc. over the course of hundreds (possibly thousands) of hours for various lists/newsgroups/forums, all for free. But this involves not even one iota of nobility since I love solving problems, and teaching people who are interested in learning, and this gives me one outlet to indulge myself. It also helps me to some extent in my professional endeavours(and probably strokes my ego to a certain extent as well). Einstein (substitute your favourite scientist here) did brilliant work most of his life, all publicly published, all for the furtherance of our understanding of nature. But was he noble for this undertaking? I think not. He did it because he loved it, it gave him status and income and to a small extent because he felt it was a contribution to the greater good. Now if he disliked it and gave up a more lucrative career path that he might have enjoyed because he truly felt he must contribute to the greater good then you could assign some(perhaps considerable) nobilty to him. But it isn't automatic just because he was doing physics rather than dog walking. Nobility is in the action and motivation not the subject itself. The flip side of this is that just because something is not a noble undetaking does not mean it is not a worthy, possibly even awesome, path to follow. |
| Thu 09 Jan | John Topley | Humble people flipping burgers throughout the world, put junk food into people's bellys so that those people are freed from having to prepare their own meals and can use the time for the greater good of mankind... ...or watching television. |
| Thu 09 Jan | sedwo | SM, I guess the issue of nobility depends on your perspective. While your actions may not seem to be so from your point of view, I would deem them to be somewhat noble. You could have spent your time using your problem solving talents elsewhere on other matters; but instead choose to help others in their efforts. Nobility - as in having high moral qualities. The sharing of your knowledge and time for the sake of others does infringe on this. And a pat on the ego isn't all that bad once in a while. I, sedwo, by the powers of the universe invested in me, and a mere mortal, deem you, SM, as 'noble'. Now you may go and have your burger. |
| Thu 09 Jan | SM | OK you win - I'm on my way to a fitting for my coronet right now. I'll eat my burger in front of the TV when I get back. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Ged Byrne | How does releasing source code reduce the size of your chin and gene pool. Or is this just the british perspective of 'noble' |
| Thu 09 Jan | w.h. | There's lots of selfish reasons to write a book on software design. At least one of the authors of Design Patterns is a college professor. And, as we know, being a professor is a matter of 'publish or perish'. Not that I would be able to explain anybody's particular actions. Design Patterns is a very good book, but people sometimes miss one the points. Any particularly savvy programming technique developed *should* be documented. So, while DP is quite a good grimore of useful object design patterns, every good programmer probably could generate one or more extra patterns themselves, document them, and share them with others. Larry Wall considers laziness and hubris two of the virtues of a programmer. Patterns reflect this. Laziness because you only want to solve a problem once and hubris because you are egocentric enough to think that other folk would appreciate your wisdom. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Adam Young | Someone recently used the Phrase to the effect that you should 'Code so that you have to get it right only once.' I would say that is the golden rule of software engineering. |
| Thu 09 Jan | T. Norman | Design Patterns are *discovered*, not created. Design Patterns are those techniques which have been found to be successful in several organizations and systems, not a savvy technique somebody invents and calls it a pattern. If you recently invented it, by definition it isn't a pattern (yet) ... because it hasn't been proven to be useful across a number of systems. The authors of 'Design Patterns' didn't invent the patterns, they only observed and documented them. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Stephen Jones | 'How does releasing source code reduce the size of your chin and gene pool.' Simple: either you do it commercially and get vast amounts of money, whereupon you either marry into nobility if you are American, or get on to the honours list if you are British, since the British upper class, like some bloated fish lying with its mouth open on the bottom of the seabed, needs regular linjections of green matter. Alternatively you release the code for free, get a reputation for altruism, and get one of the 'people's nominations' to the Honours List, which were devised so it wasn't so obvious how that money and family are the only things that matter. In the egalitarian States of course, you don't come a member of the aristocracy - you simply get invited to join the right clubs. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Guy Incognito | SM, you are such a weenie. wei, I agree wholeheartedly with your original post, and if your interested, 2 great books that have been published within the last quarter are: Agile Software Development by Robert Martin http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0135974445/ref=nosim/joelonsoftware/ Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321127420/ref=nosim/joelonsoftware/ |
| Sat 11 Jan | SM | That's Lord Weenie of Buffington-Whingely, sir! The two books you recommend are indeed worth a read but I'm not sure what they have to do with the topic of this post. The original poster asked for opinions on the nobility of those who write books about software development and make source code(presumably to illustrate the concepts in the books) freely available. Slightly of topic - what does weenie mean these days? It used to be either a synonym for nerd or a euphimism for penis used by 6 year olds. But in a computer oriented forum the nerd usage wouldn't be much of an insult and the penis one is just too weak to be used by any reasonable person. So I assume there must be something more to it these days. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Wei | =) |
| Men | Wed 08 Jan | Little Lady |
| I know how much you all love it when I complain about sexism, so... We have meetings every week at work to exchange information, and this week it was about ANT. The guy presenting (Ralph) started out assuming everyone was already familiar with ANT, since his group all uses Java. However I and one of the guys in my group have used mostly Perl. Our manager said Wait a minute, Little Lady and Jimmy dont know anything about ANT. You have to start at a more introductory level. Ralph said he had not expected to talk about that level, and anyway everyone should have read the ANT page before the meeting. I said to my manager I am familiar with ANT, I have used it and I assumed he, and everyone, heard me (but I dont speak very loud, being a mouse). Then my manager proceeded to explain ANT at the baby-beginner level, looking at me the whole time. He did not address it to Jimmy, who had freely admitted to not knowing anything about ANT. I felt singled out in front of the whole meeting as the novice who would not even have thought to read the ANT page before the meeting. Does it sound like this has something to do with my belonging to the weaker-brained sex? Should I have said something, or should I say something if this keeps on happening? Should I just practice having a louder more authoritative voice? |
| Wed 08 Jan | Where's my stapler? | It sounds more like the usual bullsnot that everyone (male or female) experiences in the typical corporate environment. In case you haven't noticed, companies are filled with abrasive jerks who never pass-up the opportunity to belittle a cow-orker. If that was the worst thing that happened to you that day, consider yourself lucky. |
| Wed 08 Jan | anon | You are too self-observant. And apparently you equate your small stature with the lack of power you present. But in reality, you were in a situation where you let people misunderstand things, just because you did not want to make your voice heard. People are not concentrating on you as much as you are. Now, if you were talking about lewd comments, or if you presented yourself as a confident and competent person but 'sense' that men were getting more responsibilities, that would be a different matter. |
| Wed 08 Jan | anon | By the way, it seems your manager is a bit dense. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Little Lady | Yes, he must be dense. He knows I knew Java before starting the job, and that I did a small JSP project last summer. Could it be amnesia? |
| Wed 08 Jan | Contrary Mary | Well, even if he had amnesia, other people must have remembered the project. You now look like an idiot who couldn't even speak up to say that you knew ANT. Take a self-assertiveness class, or an acting class. Something where you have to speak in front of others. Get over yourself and work on some people skills. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Little Lady | I have some interpersonal skills, and have public speaking experience, actually. I think maybe I was kind of startled while he was looking at me and making everyone wait while he explained it just for me. I was in a rage inside, but stayed perfectly calm on the outside. If I said anything my real feelings might have come out and it would have been a disaster. I've had many other experiences with him that make me wonder what he thinks of me. I have considered speaking to him about it privately, maybe trying to find out if he really thinks I'm dumb. I admit I'm a little afraid of him because he gets angry very easily. I'm not sure what if anything to do about this, so that's why I'm asking you all. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Torment | If it makes you feel any better, I found that when doing technical training with a small group I usually focused on the person/people that I thought were 'getting it'. Maybe your body language simply demonstrated this (head nods and so forth) and it created a connection. I used to give stand-up technical discussions about once a month to new hires and I found that the people who demonstrated a greater measure of attention or understanding were the people I was really talking to. Sex had little to do with it. I just didn't like the feeling that I was talking to a post or that I couldn't move on because nobody 'got it'. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Little Lady | Maybe that's all it was. I pay attention to people when they talk and make eye contact, and try to make them feel that I'm interested. I probably was doing that at the meeting, so he looked at me more than at the other guy. |
| Wed 08 Jan | raindog | ...Or maybe your manager finds you more attractive than Jimmy :) People doing presentations unconsciously concentrate on nice faces. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Astarte | On the feelings thingy, as a woman this is something I think about a lot. I am nervous of showing any emotion because I think it reduces my power in the workplace. But I read recently that because women don't express feelings properly in the workplace, they are actually giving up power! Apparently women are much less likely than men to stand up and say, 'When you did this the other day, it make me angry. Don't do it again'. I am working on trying to express my feelings in a non-threating way, without giving up personal power. I'd try and say something like the following one-on-one to my boss: 'Boss, some confusion arose in the meeting the other day and you got the impression somehow that I don't understand ANT. I just wanted to clarify that I did use ANT as part of the work I did at Acme before I joined the company. I thouht the rest of the presentation was really useful, though, because it reminded me that we can use the dongle-dodad in the flarble library to create a whole new dingbat for the florble project'. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Male Chauvenist Pig | Little lady, The reason the manager looked at you more than Jimmy probably has nothing to do with your perceived competence. Given the choice between looking at a man and looking at a women, most hetrosexual men will choose the latter. Was he making eye contact, or was he focusing on your face, or elsewhere? |
| Thu 09 Jan | anon | How much daily contact do you have with the manager? In my experience, after I've been working with somebody regularly for some time, I forget about their gender, race, etc. Doesn't work for everyone, though. A few years ago, I had a nasty run in with a female developer who immediately assumed I thought she was intellectually inferior to me and acted appropriately, which annoyed the hell out of me. I wasn't interested in whether or not she was a woman, I was interested in whether or not she could fix bugs! |
| Thu 09 Jan | HeyMacarana | I think you're thinking about it too much. 'Women' tend to over analyze things :) The reason he was looking at you could be any combination of what previous posters have said, or it could be anything else also. Life is full of inequities and you have to move on or else you'll be stuck in rut wasting time worrying about every little nagging thing that happens which may or may not be perceived as sexist behavior. If I were you, if I still felt the need to address this issue and take action somehow to 'get over it', then I would go with Contrary Mary's suggestion about being more self-assertive. Sorry about sounding too brash, but IMHO there's bigger life issues to worry about in the world than what one person thinks about you -- unless that one person is you're boyfriend, husband, or some other type of significant other :) Cheers, and hope everything works out! |
| Thu 09 Jan | Jutta Jordans | Guys, this is not for your ears to hear or eyes to read, just women's talk ;-) Little Lady, men just love to explain things to women. I guess it is as simple as that. It makes them feel superior. Have fun, |
| Thu 09 Jan | Little Lady | [there's bigger life issues to worry about in the world than what one person thinks about you -- unless that one person is you're boyfriend, husband, or some other type of significant other] I would say my boss is a significant other! I think worrying what he thinks of me is pretty rational. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Ged Byrne | ------------------------------------------------------------ I would say my boss is a significant other! I think worrying what he thinks of me is pretty rational. ----------------------------------------------- Little Lady After all, your career is in his hands. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Uh-huh | Do you really call yourself 'Little Lady' in meetings? |
| Thu 09 Jan | mackinac | A few days ago I was in meeting with about 20 people. As the meeting was breaking up I saw someone I needed to talk to. He was still sitting at a table going over some papers he had, so I walked up beside him and spoke to him. He didn't even notice I was there. Why? I can't blame it on being female. It wasn't terribly unusual; that sort of thing happens to me all the time. I don't have a very loud voice and in this instance with a crowd of people around I underestimated how much volume I needed to get through to someone who was concentrating on something else. Maybe your manager just didn't hear you. It is hard to tell from your short description whether your manager is sexist. There is a certain amount of randomness to the way people act and to life in general. If you want to be paranoid and assume that whatever happens to you is the result of a vast conspiracy, then you can find adequate evidence if you are careful to select out the events that support such a view. This is not to say that there aren't people in software development who are sexist, racist, ageist, whatever-ist. But the ones I've seen were fairly blatant about it. You didn't have to dig for evidence by being concerned about whether someone misestimated your current level of knowledge when explaining something to you. I know that when I ask for an explanation of something and then get a dissertation about stuff I already know it is annoying and I want to tell the person to skip all that, but usually I just let them go through it. Determing someone's current level of knowledge when you are explaining something to them can be rather difficult. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Just me (Sir to you) | As the previous post mentioned it is indeed hard to tell from your post wether your boss is sexist. Without wanting to be rude, they do however seem to be signalling that you yourself stand a serious chance of being a sexist. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Little Lady | I am a sexist. I think that women are inferior in terms of accomplishments, independence, confidence, etc. We can't blame men for that; it's nature and nurture and whatever. Women like me who want to have a career and be successful in some way have to overcome both social prejudices (which are often justified) and our own lack of confidence. I am not angry at men for under-estimating me. I'm just trying to learn how to have it happen less often, looking for new ideas. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Groby | 'I am a sexist. I think that women are inferior in terms of accomplishments, independence, confidence, etc.' Have you ever thought that this might be a self-fulfilling prophecy? Why should women be inferior in any of these areas? As for accomplishments, just look at Grace Hopper - few men or women can claim to have accomplished that much for computer science. 'We can't blame men for that; it's nature and nurture and whatever.' I'm familiar with the idea, but I find it repulsive. Everybody is responsible for what he or she is making out of his or her life. Blaming it on other factors is just that - shifting blame. 'Women like me who want to have a career and be successful in some way have to overcome both social prejudices (which are often justified) and our own lack of confidence.' That seems to be the problem - you are not confident that you are on par with your colleagues. Everything right to your nick says 'Do I really belong to this group?'. I don't think that's a question anybody on this board can answer. 'I am not angry at men for under-estimating me. I'm just trying to learn how to have it happen less often, looking for new ideas. ' Try not underestimating yourself. Realistically asses what you can do, and what your colleagues can do, then play to your strengths. If you find that difficult to do, here's a little trick I've been using for some time: Collect everything that somehow demonstrates an achievement of yours. A letter of congratulation, an article about your work, a code snippet you consider brilliant. Put them all in a binder and keep it close by. Thumb through it from time to time - it works wonders for my confidence. Good luck! |
| Thu 09 Jan | w.h. | One of my teachers in high school described how they played with the psych prof. They split the class in half based on position in the lecture hall. One size of the room stared off to space, didn't take notes, etc. The other half of the class raptly paid attention, took notes, etc. Within 5-10 minutes, the prof was just lecturing to the class that was paying attention and ignoring the ones that wasn't. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Mikayla | What they're saying: Be strong, be yourself. If you believe you belong, and are willing to learn and work at improving yourself, you do. Ignore people who are trying to stroke their own egos by making up reasons why they are better than you are. They will always do that, and some of them will always succeed. It's amazing how many ex coworkers of mine are better at assembly programming than I am, got into the field earlier / at a younger age, etc. Focus on the things you do well, get better and better at them, and you will earn intelligent people's respect. I know my way of dealing with sexism -- I don't want to put down men and glorify women, or make excuses for the failings of the women I know just so I can make them a group I can be proud to belong to. So I ignore gender as best I can, and figure that if others are actually being sexist toward me either A) they'll be convinced by my ability or B) having determined they aren't convinced of my ability I'll quit (even if I don't know why they aren't convinced). Still, it disappoints me that I don't know any strong-minded, talented technical women, who love their jobs, who like to talk geek stuff, who I can respect and look up to. Not personally, not through my several jobs, not from my school career. We have to go back to Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace for role models. I guess that's another small thing I like about this board: Most everyone here is intelligent, well spoken, technical, with diverse backgrounds and interests, AND it just so happens some of these people I think highly of are female. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Little Lady | [it disappoints me that I don't know any strong-minded,talented technical women] That's right. There were 2 women and how many hundreds or thousands of men who contributied to this field. No one knows why, but it is a fact. |
| Thu 09 Jan | HeyMacarana | 'I would say my boss is a significant other! I think worrying what he thinks of me is pretty rational.' Okay, point taken, but I still think you think too much and about what other people think about you. It's not like it's a sign that he's going to give you a bad review at the next performance evaluation or dock your paycheck soon. Just do the best darn job that you can and eventually you'll succeed at disarming any stereotypes associating you with your gender. If men were to always view women in a condescending manner then there wouldn't be any female CEOs (like Carly Fiorina of HP, Meg Whitman of eBay, and a host of others like them). I'm sure Fiorina, Whitman, and other C-level executive women faced the same social pressures and 'glass ceilings' at the workplace as you just did. However, I think they overcame those obstacles by not wasting time worrying too much about other people's misconceptions, since they know they can do the job and do it well, and after they're done all people CAN say is how great they are at doing their jobs. If you really, really, really are interested to know what you're boss thinks of you then just go ahead and confront him -- in a very tactful manner -- since you said he was prone to get angry easily. Otherwise, you'll just do yourself in with this type of thinking and become depressed. That's definately not going to help you on the job and most likely will do harm to your career. Strive for greatness and you'll succeed! Good luck. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Hasan Basri | The problem is of course that as a woman you are not really capable of thinking through this a logically as a man might. I suggest that you take a deep breath and count to 10. Then remind yourself that its not important what others think of you, its only important that you follow the guidance and leadership of the more experienced and more capable men around you. As a woman you are labouring under a distinct disadvantage as a programmer, the ability to place yourself within a paradigm and write that to code is something that requires a mans thought processes...similar to the way that men tend to be better placing themselves spacially... If I was your boss I would also take extra care in explaining such things to you, rather than feeling hurt or threatened you should be grateful for the time he is spending bringing you up to the level of understanding that someone like Jimmy would no doubt get at once. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Doug Withau | Someone should hit you with a clue stick. You did not speak up during the incident. It upset you but you said nothing! You say you were in a rage, but said nothing! It is your own damn fault. Speak. Your job requires you do more than type things into a computer. Put your hand in the bosses face and tell him to stop! Yes, he does think you are an idiot. Why? Because, you wasted the time of everyone in the room while he explained ANT to you. You could have said “Stop, I know ANT, maybe you need to explain this to Jimmy.” It is your responsibility to inform your boss about what you know. To be so arrogant as to believe your boss has the time to memorize your resume is ridiculous. He does not remember what you did on your last job. So this meeting happens and you feel upset, then you analyze all your feelings and start to feel bad. Do you go and tell your boss this is wrong, this is sexist. No! You come here and ask complete strangers to validate your self-pity. Humbug. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Hostile Curmudgeon | Management ranks are often made up of low achievers who play golf with or otherwise click on an interpersonal level with the ownership and executives of their employe's companies. Think 'Peter Principle' - this is reality at more places than either of us would care to admit. The glad handing and shallow personality characteristics required to impress higher-ups also make people like your manager believe that appearance and perception *ARE REALITY*. Basically, dumb shallow people who believe that their personal prejudices are reality, tend to be most promotable because they make their own managers feel good and not inadequate. And 'feel good' is the antithesis of critical thought and genuine insight... because all that critical thought and insight 'drags everyone down'. Basically, it sounds like you've been pigeonholed by a turd whose agenda is to indulge his own sense of order and equity. Dunno what to do about it except work to build your stock up with those around you at a peer level that you also respect. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Tj | I don't think she needed to be confrontational. I imagined how one even-tempered person I know would handle this, and he'd smile wide-eyed, interrupt, and say something like, 'Wait a second, you're looking at me as if I don't know this.' |
| Thu 09 Jan | Little Lady | [the ability to place yourself within a paradigm and write that to code is something that requires a mans thought processes.] Yes, I think you're right. I'm going back into the kitchen now where I belong (but following a recipe might be too much of a strain on my tiny brain). |
| Thu 09 Jan | Little Lady | I think I can answer my own question (thanks to those of you who at least tried to make sense). The secret is to have realistic confidence. My boss (who is a great programmer, by the way) seems to respect me when I'm feeling realistically confident. By that I mean: aware of what I know and what I don't know; having a balanced view of my abilities which is not inflated or self-effacing; concentrating and paying attention to the problem being discussed; not letting my mind wander. For example, if I'm thinking 'Oh I wonder if he thinks I'm dumb because I'm a woman,' I am not thinking about the problem that we're trying to solve at that moment, or the thing I'm supposed to be remembering. I guess what I'm trying to say is there is a zen of being a confident person at work, which is probably more common among men since they are more 'at home' in a work context than women are. If I temporarily forget what sex I am and remember that in the work context I am a person with the ability to solve certain kinds of problems and to have certain kinds of knowledge -- when I can manage that others will see me as a person, not just as a woman. I will never be as loud and confident as some of the guys there. However, lots of guys are quiet and modest and have a balanced view of themselves. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Hasan Basri | I did speak thusly: [the ability to place yourself within a paradigm and write that to code is something that requires a mans thought processes.] Little Lady intelligently replied: [Yes, I think you're right. I'm going back into the kitchen now where I belong (but following a recipe might be too much of a strain on my tiny brain). ] It is a possibility...the secret to avoiding overheating your brain in this fashion is to remove your shoes (and socks). this allows a greater rate of air circulation and ensures that your blood (and therefore your brain) remains cool, reducing the strain. If you find that you still suffer from brain strain whilst reading, something else you can try is to increase the surface area of your body in some way, thus speeding up the cooling process. The most common method of doing this is enlarging the stomach area, this area being the most elastic. HTH |
| Thu 09 Jan | Little Lady | Good idea. Barefoot and pregnant keeps the brain from overheating. |
| Fri 10 Jan | ODN | Perhaps your boss directed his hand-holding explanation at you because of Jimmy, not you. Perhaps Jimmy has a fragile ego (or you boss assumed he does because he's male), and decided that you as a woman would be the least likely to take offense, even if he was explaining largely for Jimmy's sake. Or you may have been the sacrificial 'village idiot' for the sake of your boss's team's prestige in the eyes of the Java team. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Fernanda Stickpot | 'I am a sexist. I think that women are inferior in terms of accomplishments, independence, confidence, etc.' When I started reading the thread I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But by the time I got to this post it was clear to me that you are projecting your own inferiority complex onto the rest of us. I don't know if your coworkers are sexist or not, but I don't think that you can assess the situation realistically in this state of mind. Leaving aside the obvious untenability of statements like the one above - if you believe it, I'm not sure what behaviour from others would satisfy you. If you truly believe yourself (leave the rest of us out of it, please) to be inferior, then why object when others treat you as inferior? And if your alleged superiors were to treat you as an equal, would you not see this as special treatment to cushion your alleged weaknesses and be offended by it? Or, conversely, feel pressured by expectations you felt unable to meet? The level of confusion you display will probably not be assuaged by discussing it with us. I think professional counselling would be more appropriate. I wish you the best of luck. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Little Lady | If you could bring yourself to look objectively at the statistics you would see that women, as a whole, have not accomplished nearly as much in technology, and in science in general, as men have. In previous ages this was because women were usually prevented from being educated. Now maybe it's because they have to balance family and career. I am not judging anyone, and the last thing I meant to say was that I am inferior because I'm a woman. But you're more interested in believing what you want to believe than in looking at the statistical facts. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Practical geezer | Little Lady, You are only inferior because you measure by criteria that support this inferiority. In general, no one is inferior to anyone, unless you start looking at specifics. Meaning, humans are not inferior to gorilla's, unless of course you look at sheer body strength. But there is a more subtle effect that you seem to be missing. It is in the point of view. Consider the following: - Humans are inferior to machines because humans are easily distractable. Is that true? Yes, because humans are indeed distractable. Make a loud noise in a room of people and look how many will look up. Probably all of them, at least most of them. It seems that humans are indeed inferior to machines... ...if you need dedicated attention and unrelentless devotion to a task. So lets go with machines instead, right? But wait, now there is a small fire. Look at the dedication of that machine. Still going strong while the fire grows. All humans have left the building and have started to fight the fire, but that machine has just perished. Too bad. So what's the deal? If you measure a human by machine criteria, it will surely look bad. Likewise the other way around. Now look at the human from a human perspective. - A human is attentive to its environment, which allows it to survive under the most difficult and unpredictable of circumstances. That's not a defect, that's an asset. A human asset perfectly fit for our environment. So what does this have to do with you? Well, you appear to measure yourself by foreign standards. No wonder you look bad. Are you bad at logic? So what, logic is a human invention and probably a male invention. Are you bad at showing off? So what, isn't that a male trait too? And males haven't had a real (natural) need for it for ages either. Of course you could still be inferior to others anyway, but go shame yourself for thinking it could be because your a female, unless you have good reason to measure by male criteria. I don't feel inferior either just because I do not have breasts and can not feed my newborn. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Fernanda Stickpot | '[...] the last thing I meant to say was that I am inferior because I'm a woman.' Well, in that case, I can see only one thing left that you could have meant to say: Women in general are inferior, but you're not, and you're afraid that your male colleagues will look at you and see a Woman derived from the class Inferior, instead of seeing you as the competent, experienced special case that you are. Do I understand you correctly now? |
| Fri 10 Jan | Little Lady | Fernanda, Can you explain to me, in a logical way, why you think women are not inferior, from the perspective of modern science and technology. Based on the number of important inventions and discoveries, how can you claim that women have accomplished the equivalent of men? I am not talking about the reasons. And I am not talking about anything besides science and technology right now. Women might be better at nurturing, applying lipstick, and whatever else. If you deny that women as a group are inferior in this respect, then explain your reasons. Don't just get mad because you don't like reality. |
| Fri 10 Jan | SM | White Americans have 'accomplished' far more than Black Americans in the areas of science and technology (even allowing for relative population sizes) over the last 200 years. Does this mean that blacks are 'inferior'? Or does that mean that there are complex socio-economic issues surrounding the issue of 'accomplishment' and that it may be a poor measure of ability, especially when generalized to large groups? I've just re-read this entire thread and if the logic you have displayed here is any indication of your analytical abilty in general then maybe the problem is that you truly are inferior in ability, not because you are a woman, but just because it is not a talent that you happen to have in great measure. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Little Lady | There is a difference between describing the statistical characteristics of a group as a whole, and talking about individual members of the group. If you have no knowledge of statistics (and you apparently don't) you will not be able to grasp this. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Bill Carlson | Another example: Our company does a lot of technical support and the support staff is about 50/50 men and women. The female support staff often have trouble getting callers to trust their recommendations. When this is the case, they simply transfer the call to a male rep, who makes an identical recommendation. Problem solved. Attitudes are moving in the right direction. Maybe in a few decades... |
| Fri 10 Jan | Fernanda Stickpot | I apologize for thinking that you were confused. I thought you were saying several things at once: a) that you were afraid you were being perceived as inferior b) that you thought the perception of inferiority was a result of your womanhood c) that you were afraid that you *were* inferior because of your womanhood d) that you wanted to stop this treatment of you as inferior However, reading all of your posts, I now get a clearer picture, and obviously point c) does not apply. You are not afraid that *you* are inferior because of your womanhood. Instead, you seem to be saying that women are demonstrably inferior as a group, and should be perceived as such. You are also, however, indignant at any assumption that you, personally, are inferior, because that would be treating you as a group member and not as an individual. In other words, you think that sexism is rational unless it's done to you. Women are group members, but you are not. You're special, and should be treated as special. A statistical weighing of your probable abilities based on your membership of an inferior group is not what you think people should be using to make decisions about how to treat you. Instead, they should memorize your résumé and keep the details of your achievements uppermost in their minds whenever they have dealings with you. And once we get down to axiomatic stuff like 'I don't believe that large sections of society are as good as other sections' or 'I don't believe that anybody else in the world is conscious except me' you get into the realm of the unarguable. It all boils down to values. I don't agree with yours. |
| Fri 10 Jan | SM | Little Lady - I apologize for implying, however obliquely, that you might not be very bright. I don't know you and what little I do know has been gleaned from a few anonymous posts. Even if I find your arguments strikingly lacking it doesn't excuse the rather snide comment I made about your abilities. On the other hand you don't help yourself very much by responding with a non sequitur about individual vs group characterisitics when we were both, obviously, talking about the differences in characteristics between groups. And then topping it off with an attack on my knowledge of elementary statistics based on your own non sequitur. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Tony Dismukes | 'Can you explain to me, in a logical way, why you think women are not inferior, from the perspective of modern science and technology. Based on the number of important inventions and discoveries, how can you claim that women have accomplished the equivalent of men?' You are using the word 'inferior' in a different sense from what I would if you use it to refer to the historical accomplishments of an arbitrarily defined segment of the population rather than as a description of the innate or potential ability of members of that group. Many more men than women have worked in the programming & computer science fields. Therefore more innovations in those areas have come from males. However, if you take a male and a female with the same amount of background in the field, and give them each the same amount of training, there's no reason to expect one to do better than the other. (Or if you want an actual statistically valid study - pick a number of randomly seleted male-female pairs, controlling for previous background, until you have a significant sample size. You probably won't find a noticeable correlation between ability and gender.) When you use words like 'inferior,' you imply that the actual ability of an average female with x amount of training is less than that of an average male with the same amount of training, and I haven't seen any evidence of that. My workgroup has 8 male programmers & 2 female programmers, but the females we have are just as good as the males. All I see is a culture that encourages one gender more than the other to enter the field in the first place. |
| Fri 10 Jan | GiveMeABreak | Little Lady said 'If you deny that women as a group are inferior ...' I RESENT THIS COMMENT... as well as others you have made. Historically, women have been forced into inferior roles, but we've taken huge strides over the past few decades. It's general knowledge that there simply are more men who are interested in this field than there are women. That doesn't mean that women are less intelligent or inferior in any way. I'm a programmer, I'm a woman, I'm intelligent, I stand up for myself, and I communicate well with others. If you see yourself as inferior, how can you expect others to view you as anything else? |
| Fri 10 Jan | Little Lady | I do not think I am inferior. I do not think women are genetically inferior. I do expect to be perceived differently because I'm female, because people expect women to be different from men. These expectations are rational, based on statistical observations. At times it bothers me to be seen as inferior (in terms of technology and intelligence only). It bothers me even though I know it's rational for them to stereotype me. It bothers me because I try so hard and because I know I'm very intelligent. I like to feel appreciated once in a while. On the other hand I realize that ultimately people are seen as individuals and that if I believe in myself others will believe in me also. It just is not as easy as it would be if I were male. But I'm not and that's ok, because it makes life more challenging and I suppose more interesting. People misunderstood a lot of what I said and got very angry. But I can understand that since stereotyping and prejudice are dangerous subjects. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Groby | Masterfull trolling, Little Lady. Masterful! |
| Sun 12 Jan | a guy who tried to understand | Little lady: Unfortunately, it's men's world and you can't do nothing about it. So stay afloat. All the shows about women and men are equal is just nothing but hypocricy and we all know that. The fact of the matter is there's no such a thing as men and women being equal in any sense of the word. |
| Does your work give you meaning? | Wed 08 Jan | sedwo |
| I believe we all need to work. But I wonder, how many people seek out jobs that they feel provides them with more than just monetary rewards and status. We all have some responsibilities, school, car, mortgage, family, etc.; and require some economic means to sustain our level of lifestyle. But remove all that and I bring forth the question of what, if any, does your job give meaning to you? I ask this out of curiosity and wonder since I myself am pondering mainly what my focus in a life of work with computers and software should fulfill. With this brief opportunity in my life; at 28 and being a software developer for 5 years since graduating, it has become important for me to do something worthwhile with my time, and hopefully something I can show for in the future. My answer: I am trying to start my own venture in a software dev. company. In the hopes to grow it in developing tools and working with others that help and aid our explorations in this world. Hopefully to be a part, if not whole, of something much larger than myself. I love computers, and think that to be able to use them as a tool for greater good in aiding people, must bring buckets of satisfaction. Now it might not solve world hunger, but it’s worthy to be aware of the bigger picture. As an example, I have worked on projects for many large institutions for the human genome community. Yet it never felt that I was making a difference. So maybe my piece of software somewhere will be in the chain that helped defeat cancer. Great! But its ownership and immediate gratification that seems to bring most satisfaction. Build a pump for Africa to bring them water in the desert, and when it works, you know it right away; not ten years later. A level of success and independence in life where your satisfaction is derived from the ownership of working in a job that has meaning. I realize we all have choices, though some more than others, but if you could, and even better if you are; then ponder for a moment “what, if any, does your job give meaning to you?” |
| Wed 08 Jan | Alex Chernavsky | For what it's worth, I work for the Humane Society. I've always liked animals, and frankly -- I sometimes think I'd rather help animals than people. I putter around with computers in my spare time. I'm a rank amateur. Half the time, I don't even know what you guys are talking about here. |
| Wed 08 Jan | HeyMacarana | At the moment, the only meaning that my work gives me is that it means I can feed myself and have a roof over my head. It satisfies me enough for now, especially in this economy. However, I don't see myself developing software, selling, and jumping all around trying to chase the almighty buck since it gets extremely tiring after a while. And what do we get out of all of that? Just some paper that is colored green with pictures of dead presidents in the bank account. If I make it big someday (ie. hopefully a couple of IPOs) then I'd like to be a venture capitalist and fund ideas that will help third-world countries get past the poverty level. Those people or missing out on so much, but then again some of them may be just content the way they are living the simple life. Sometimes I wish I too could simplify things in my life. Anyway, however, I think they would still appreciate the finer things life has to offer given the doors and the opportunities to walk through them. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Bill Carlson | When work has meaning it's either selfish or alturistic. Neither is intrinsicaly better than the other. Selfish meaning that the work rewards you personally, i.e. working with animals, sick people, a non-profit, etc. Alturistic means work you don't enjoy, but that has larger benefits to society. If you're willing to accept alturistic meaning, an interesting point is raised. For many of us, we can 'contribute' more to society by living cheap and donating our excess to efficiently run charities than we could by doing socially meaningful work ourselves. For example, a single techie making $70k, could probably live a comfortable existance on $30k salary and donate $40k a year, the approximate cost of 2 people doing full time 'socially meaningful' work. This has the added societal benefit of employing three people and is likely more beneficial than the techie taking a low-pay, meaningful job himself. I don't do this personally, but it's an interesting way to look at things and an alternate way to achieve meaning while doing boring, for-profit work. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Lauren B. | Wow. What a great topic! I'm really interested in seeing others' responses. For me, no, it doesn't. Indeed, there is still some satisfaction of intellectual curiousity, puzzle solving skills, and creativity by doing programming and system design. When I first started working, that was very satisfying. But since probably 80% of the code I've ever written in my life has been thrown away before it was a year old, I doubt it's done much good to anyone. The reason it has been thrown away generally has been changing corporate priorities. Projects get cancelled, shelved, don't sell well, get replaced with the newest/latest tool, etc. etc. This theme comes up again and again. It's getting old. As Bill suggests, there is some satisfaction derived from being a productive member of society in that: 1) I am able to contribute to charities rather significantly due to my salary 2) I pay a LOT of taxes - to support national parks, pay civil servants, fund schools, etc. (Well, OK, those are the things I'd like to think *my* taxes support, not bombs, bailouts, military buildup. :-) 3) I generally work a 40-hr. week, so I have time to volunteer and participate in other more satisfying activities. But since I spend so many hours, so much of my life, working, I really want it to be something that feeds my soul and makes a difference. I don't want my gravestone to say 'She paid her taxes well and we are so grateful.' Ideally, I'd like a job that is a combination of Bill's selfish AND altruistic categories. If it could involve programming/systems too, wow, that would be great! |
| Wed 08 Jan | PC | I don't know what's wrong with me but I find developing software meaningful. I don't know why. It doesn't have to be for a charity or anything like that. Why it seems meaningful to me is hard to explain. I got into this field for philosophical reasons (see God and Computers, down there somewhere). |
| Wed 08 Jan | Bella | For example, a single techie making $70k, could probably live a comfortable existance on $30k salary and donate $40k a year, the approximate cost of 2 people doing full time 'socially meaningful' work. charities are not such an 'efficient market'. See this guys' FC post for details: http://www.postget.com/get/article.php?newsid=95979 |
| Wed 08 Jan | sedwo | Bill Carlson, I agree with your viewpoint on the matter. Although you haven't quiete stated which side of the fence you're on. But as human beings, I believe we are naturaly selfish. And for most, a job is mainly to suffice our own interests and goals. If it didn't, why do it? Assuming you have a choice, why suffer in misery doing work you detest. So we search for a place where our work gives us a little more purpose then just a pay cheque; and by keeping us happy, we can focus on the alturisitc view. Giving away your hard earned money to other's may seem like a good idea; but personally, the moment of alturism diminishes quickly after that, and you're left once again; pondering on a better way to make a more gratifying change. 'Chose work that you love and you will never have to work a day in your life.' -Confuscious |
| Wed 08 Jan | Bill Carlson | Addressing a few comments: sedwo: My personal plan is to live frugally, marry someone who is also frugal, retire at a modest age and leave our estate to charity. There's a difference between charity and sacrifice. An individual MAY make a greater contribution by sacrificing his/her own agenda, but not necessarily. There are giving people in this world, but most do it for their own sense of satisfaction, not really for the greater good (which is not a bad thing). Bella: To assume that all charities are inefficient based on one person's experience is childish as is assuming that you could run a more efficient non-profit than those who are experienced at it. An efficient charity only wastes a small fraction of contributions. Give anonymously if you like. Lauren: I agree with your post. A person shouldn't underestimate the net positive gain the average cheerful soul makes onto the world. Are other people happier because of you? Is your government richer because of you (taxes minus usage)? Are others employed because of you? Are you a role model? Are you generally nice and respectful of others? Are you environmentally conscious? In my mind, a person who can answer yes to most of these questions is a 'good enough' person. They can always try to give more, but it's a good baseline. This benchmark is necessary otherwise some people always feel like they're not doing enough. |
| Wed 08 Jan | John C. | My job (and I suppose life more generally) gives me two things that I consider much more important than just money to live on. One is personal satisfaction -- the enjoyment of learning new things, tackling new challenges, reveling in a job well done. That's very important to me. The second is knowing that I've done something, even something seemingly trivial in the grand scheme of things, to make people's lives better. One of my favorite moments was a year or two ago when a user of one of the tools I'd built for a big, big company said 'This software has made my job *so* much easier.' He went on to say how he liked the interface and the fact that I had listened to his needs and made sure the tool met those needs, rather than just pumping out whatever would've been easiest for me to code. No, I'm not saving lives or ending world hunger, but getting those little acknowledgements that I made a tiny corner of the world a tiny bit more pleasant -- and that I had fun doing it -- really makes me feel good. Maybe I'm just easy to please :-) |
| Wed 08 Jan | X. J. Scott | As one who has done overseas volunteer work and observed and shared war stories about many situations, I would caution anyone regarding 'throwing money at the problem', meaning sending cash to any organization, private or public. Most often, the cash does more harm than good. The reasons for this are complex and varied. If you have a substantial amount to invest, you would be well advised to take a vacation and volunteer for the prospective charity you are interested in supporting in order to get the full story. I am not speaking against the practice, just advising you to be cautious and conscientious if your intent is to improve the lot of someone in a third word country. One obvious example: massive western grain aid to Somalia (and others) depressed the price of grain, driving the few local farmers who were hanging on out of business during the one time in which they may have been able to earn a decnt profit and grow their business. Instead, the crops they sweateid and suffered to bring to market sat unwanted and unbought while people gorged on free western aid. The farmers were left with nothing to buy the materials they needed for the next season and went out of business. The result of the western aid was to knock the country back 5,000 years into the stone age, causing untold suffering and misery. Of course, none of the happy donors bothered to stay around long enough to see the results of their activites and to this day insist they have done a wonderful thing. A subtler example: building free homes for poor people in Tijuana has been shown to upset the balance of power in a poor neighborhood, creating a new royalty class of privledged homeowners while doing nothing to improve the situation for any of the parties involved. The best you can do is to remain personally involved, or to directly finance someone who is capable of staying involved (a zealot, basically) and commited over a long time and who has the experience and forsight to avoid these sorts of feel-good traps. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Bob Greene | No, intrinsically my work doesn't give me meaning. It is merely a means to an end. Hopefully that end will have some meaning. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Bob Greene | I donated once to an animal rights group. They've since spent the original donation plus more by sending me stuff I never requested, including additional solicitations. I didn't stop giving though. Now I buy supplies for and donate money to the LOCAL no-kill animal shelter. |
| Wed 08 Jan | Wei | I find that I must (internally) find meaning in my work - to design and develop easy-to-use and powerful creational software - to do good work... So yup my work gives me meaning... =) |
| Thu 09 Jan | X. J. Scott | You're right about that Bob. I hate when they delude me with their glossy four-color brochures begging for donations sent biweekly. Such an unfortunate waste. And kind of sickening. There is of course no better way to assure I will never give another dime. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Yandoo | Interesting topic. I think you've made an interesting point Bill, but for me your suggestion completely misses the point. There is no way that completing mundane work for the rest of my life and giving a big chunk of my salary to charity every year is going to give me quality of life results. The complete opposite infact - it sounds like a guilty cop out to me. Firstly, and most importantly, by not tackling the issue of what life really means to me and not focusing on utilizing my precious time in ways that I'll look back on your death bed and be proud of I'm just cheating myself. I want my life to have a real meaning, to make a difference to people's lives, for me to have a positive impact and to leave a legacy. Earning 70 grand and giving 40 each year to charity doesn't really meet that criteria, does it?! Secondly, like somebody else said here, throwing money at Charities *can* be dangerous. Your time is far more precious than your money. |
| Thu 09 Jan | PC | I think the best way to help the world is to get to know yourself and be yourself. For some people, that means doing something to help the poor. But a genius who invents something that ends up creating jobs has done more to help the poor than Mother Theresa ever could. Giving people food or medicine so they can hang on one more miserable day is only a short-term solution. People want to be self-sufficient and to have self-respect. I don't know how the world can be fixed up so no one is poor, if that is even possible. We should all contribute to charities now and then, but that is not the way to put meaning into your life. Just learn to be yourself, and you will discover your true inner compassion and genius. Maybe you will only help a small number of people but that could mean more than sending off charity checks. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Jutta Jordans | For me, my work definitely does give me meaning. This has nothing to do with the great scheme of things, I fear. I wish I could say: yeah, I do something that is crucial to the survival, wellbeing and development of humankind, but this is not the case. Still, my live has changed 100 % when I started to work (having been a long term student before). I am proud of my work, I love to solve challenging problems. Being in the social environment of a company is also something that has proven very important for my well being. Gone are the depressed lonely days I spent in my apartment, knowing I should do something but not being able to focus on it. Now I spent my days happily in the office, knowing I should do something but posting to Joel's forum instead ;-) Have fun, |
| Thu 09 Jan | Philippe Back | Maybe this all boils down to motivation towards something. For a review of those, check this: http://www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/Notes/ under 'motivation'... and check where you are now in: http://www.cba.uri.edu/Scholl/Notes/Sources_Inducement_Matrix.htm And remember: 'Just be, life asks nothing special out of you...' (... and then Zen will seem appealing ;-) ) |
| Thu 09 Jan | Bill Carlson | Yandoo, I appreciate the response. I wasn't advocating the keep $30k, give $40k philosophy, just arguing that it MAY be more beneficial for people OTHER than oneself. I would get satisfaction by going out on the weekend and fixing a poor person's leaky roof. The same result would be accomplished by hiring a roofer - and the patch would last longer. :) The joy of helping is a selfish consideration and this is NOT BAD. However, the efficiency question is raised. Many people get the same sense of satisfaction giving to Save The Children (a wildly inefficient charity) as they do to Habitat for Humanity (a relatively smart organization). Good for them, but as engineers, we're managing two projects, engineering the happiness of others and engineering our own happiness. My argument is that the former sometimes comes at the expense of the latter. It's okay to enjoy helping people, but the enjoyable, hands on work is not always the best use of your time. Example: Would it be better for Bill Gates to A) Donate $40B to charity -or- B) volunteer full time at a local homeless shelter and watch his MS stock decline by $40B in his absence. The latter would be good for B.G., the former, good for humanity. It's a tradeoff. Doing either should make you feel good about yourself. |
| Thu 09 Jan | Alex Chernavsky | Bob Greene wrote: 'Now I buy supplies for and donate money to the LOCAL no-kill animal shelter. ' No-kill animal shelters are essentially a marketing scam. They simply push the dirty work onto other shelters. ============== According to the Humane Society's Martha Armstrong, many no-kill shelters turn away more animals than they accept. The 'rejects' often end up at publicly funded shelters -- which must take every animal brought in. When cages fill up, those shelters euthanize animals to make room for others. Net result: A large number of unwanted animals still die. The only difference is who euthanizes them. [...] Another potential problem with no-kill shelters: Animals may languish in cages for months. ============== http://www.usaweekend.com/01_issues/010722/010722shelters.html |
| Fri 10 Jan | Yandoo | I agree with you partially on that point Bill. However for me Bill Gates contributution to this world is not the money he gives to charity every year, but it's the impact he's had on all of our lives. He's made a real difference to a lot of people's lives - and as much as we all complain about Microsoft their contribution to personal computing over the last decade or so is immense. He also employs a massive number of people around the world who, so I believe, generally work in a very positive environment and are rewarded quite well. That's where his impact is. Of course, the money he gives to charity is good, but for me that is not his 'life purpose' or whatever you want to call it. Personally, I feel that I can have more positive impact on people in my life through the private sector than I could probably ever have through the government or charities. I intend to build something great, some entity which people can be proud to belong to, that actually does something that makes people lives better or easier. What that is I don't know, but I'm in no rush. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Stephen Jones | All this talk about no-kill animal shelters and starving people in the Third World makes me wonder whether we can't combine the two efforts and donate our money to animal shelters that send unwanted pets as additional protein to the malnourished. We could even recycle some North Korean nuclear scientists as the cooks, and thus contribute to world peace. |
| Fri 10 Jan | PC | Starving people in the third world need birth control. We are very lucky to not be starving, and that gives us a chance to contribute to the evolution of human knowledge and understanding. You can have a meaningful life without being a charity worker -- helping starving people survive and reproduce and stay in exactly the same miserable condition for generations. By improving your own knowledge and understanding and contributing in your field, whatever it is, you might help the world as a whole. Of course, advances in science and technology are just as likely to hurt people -- better weapons, more pollution, jobs made obsolete. We are not in a position to predict what the results of our work will be. Having good intentions and hoping for the best is all we can do. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Bob Greene | Alex, They can't take in _all_ the pets. That's a given. Some will have to be turned away. Does that mean they should give up and turn over all the ones that they _are_ able to care for? As for languishing in cages, that's where it helps to know your local shelter. The one I give to is located on several acres. Some animals are caged, but they get walked. A great many others are kept in fences together. Cats are still kept in cages, but they're room-sized playpens. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Brent P. Newhall | Just to wander further off-topic: 'We are very lucky to not be starving' -- presumably referring to those living in the First World There's a dangerous flaw in that reasoning: A lot of people worked very hard to make America, Europe, Japan, etc. so wealthy and prosperous. It's not all luck. There are reasons for the world's current state. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Stephen Jones | ' There's a dangerous flaw in that reasoning: A lot of people worked very hard to make America, Europe, Japan, etc. so wealthy and prosperous.' False logic here Brent. Even if you were bone idle in America you would not starve, and if you're starving in India you don't get too much chance to be hard working. It's possible to claim that Britain and America are better off than India or Uganda because of more thought and organization by their rulers, but whether you're born in one or the other is purely a matter of luck. |
| Fri 10 Jan | Just me (Sir to you) | 'A lot of people worked very hard to make America, Europe, Japan, etc. so wealthy and prosperous. It's not all luck.' You mean things like plundering the colonies or enslaving the natives, right? |
| Fri 10 Jan | deconstructionist | 'There's a dangerous flaw in that reasoning: A lot of people worked very hard to make America, Europe, Japan, etc. so wealthy and prosperous. It's not all luck.'
ouch. The flip side of that would be:
|
| Fri 10 Jan | PC | I am lucky to be born in a rich country. I did not have to work hard to make that happen -- it was chance. And my country (the US) owes a lot to luck. Of course people worked hard but people have worked hard in other countries also, and are still poor. I'm very glad I was born here and that I'm not starving. But I don't feel I should donate half my salary to starving people. Having some extra money and a little extra time might help me contribute to the world in some little way. I agree we should give something to charities. But keep in mind we give an awful lot just by paying at least a third of our pay in taxes, some of which goes to poor people. |
| Sat 11 Jan | Alex Chernavsky | I guess I wouldn't have a problem with no-kill animal shelters, if they didn't try to claim some sort of moral high ground. On the subject of donating to charity: Australian philosophy professor Peter Singer (now at Princeton University) has some interesting theories about ethics. He claims that living a life of luxury (e.g., dining at nice restaurants, owning expensive cars, etc.) is morally equivalent to selling orphans for their organs. Well, something like that, anyway. See this _New York Times Magazine_ article called, 'The Singer Solution to World Poverty': http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990905mag-poverty-singer.html |
| Sun 12 Jan | X. J. Scott | That's a neat article about Singer's argument that every dollar you spend on yourself at a restaurant results in a child dying somewhere. Here's another possibility: Joe stops eating at his favorite restaurant for a $50 lunch and sends the $10,000 saved yearly to 'Help the Starving Kids Inc.' which spends $9,800 on administrative costs and sends $200 to an aid agency that donates needed food to North Korea and which actually goes to feed their military officers. Joe convinces his friends to stop eating at the restaurant as well and it goes out of business. Dora, Jose, Stella, and 15 other Guatemalans who were working in the kitchen lose their jobs and can no longer sent their half their salaries home to their villages, whose sole source of income is their receipts sent, 100% (not 2%) of which go directly to alleviate poverty and disease. 2500 children die the next year of cholera because the villages can no longer pay for the electricity for their well pumps but must now get water out of ditches with a bucket. I say this is more likely. Let Singer show the facts that prove me wrong and his idle speculations and fine tuned hallucinations right. Otherwise, his claims are just a form of madness, as is his advocacy for killing crippled children and unwanted elderly folks as part of a systematic eugenics program to improve the gene pool and create a Master Race. His argument and donations are merely a political technique to have a convenient way to belittle his detractors. This is a commonly used propaganda technique -- the 'moral high ground' manueveur. |
| Sun 12 Jan | Stephen Jones | X.J. Scott , you're probably thinking more about the matter than many, but I'm not too sure you're coming to the correct conclusion. Your figures for administrative overhead are way too high, and more important you are not explaining what gets hidden under the name of administration. If your were a businessman looking into the feasibility of buying a few tons of food from a farmer at a certain price at the farm a few thousand kilometers away, and selling it in small packages to consumers in New York delicatessens you would not consider that the difference between what you paid the farmer and what the consumer paid is net profit. In fact you would consider that a markup of two or three hundred percent would still leave you with a whopping great loss. For some kind of reason this kind of thinking disappears when dealing with charities. The linking of charity to starvation relief certainly tends to confuse the matter. People don't normally die of starvation (death from diseases exacerbated by malnutrition is a different matter) in societies at peace unless the government actually exacerbates the crisis (either for political reasons as in the Sudan, or because of economic fundamentialism as happened in India at least twice under the British - and never since indepencance and not recorded before). As a result emergency food aid must normally be sent out to people displaced by war or natural disaster with the consequent ballooning in distribution costs. Another trap people fall into when they talk about donations to charity, is expecting every penny to count when they would never dream of this happening in other fields. If you invest in the stock market it is taken for granted that you are taking the long view (can be as long as thirty years) and you know that 'some you win, some you lose'. Even when dealing with your own personal expenditure where you are in complete control you know that you probably waste thirty or forty percent of all the money you spend. Another trap is that of saying that if everyting is not solved, nothing is solved. You yourself provide a fine example of that: ' A subtler example: building free homes for poor people in Tijuana has been shown to upset the balance of power in a poor neighborhood, creating a new royalty class of privledged homeowners while doing nothing to improve the situation for any of the parties involved.' I'll repeat the phrase you used 'doing nothing to improve the situation for any of the parties involved' What about the people who now had houses, albeit very basic ones. Are you saiying that having decent shelter is no better than not; if these people were no better off, why were they considered a 'royalty class'. Sure, giving them a new house would not increase their income (unless they could rent part out on the sly) or lift them out of poverty, but having a house is just that - having a house - and it's a hell of a lot better than not having one - just as having your own borehole is a lot better than having to walk two kilometres down the road.for water. Two things that could be done to improve the lot of the poor in the Third World are firstly to stop the obscene subsidies given to rich American and European Uniion farmers and farming corporations . The effect is twofold; firstly Third World farmers are deprived of a market for their goods, and secondly subsidized western foodstuffs flood the markets of Third World countries depressing prices for the indigenous farmers, as you remarked has happened with emergency food aid on occasion. Tariff barriers to other Third World imports should also be lifted. What's the point of giving a man a fishing rod if you block access to the market where he can sell the fish? Secondly pressure should be put on the IMF and other organizations to rein in the twenty-something college grads they routinely send off to developing countries to sit in a five-star hotel for a couple of weeks and then come up with a bunch of economic measures that cause untold hardship to the poorest in what is already a poor country. It is pretty pointless to be collecting money to for hospitals for cholera relief when people are having their piped water and electricity cut off because of massive price hikes to make the balance sheets look better for Western multinationals to take over. |
| Shelf-Life Of A Programmer | Tue 07 Jan | John Fletcher |
| Ive noticed a few posts recently where people in their late-twenties seem convinced theyre reaching the top of the hill (in their programming careers) and theyll soon fall off the other side and have to do something else. To me, thats pretty surprising as Im thirty-three, have been programming for twenty years and am quite happy to continue developing for the rest of my days. Sure, theres pressure from within my company to climb the career ladder (ie move into management and learn to shuffle paperwork) but that just doesnt appeal to me. I know quite a few people whove progressed to a team-leader position, realised they miss coding, and then leave their company to go contracting as a developer instead. Another thing Ive noticed is there are fewer new, young programmers coming through the ranks. Out of a few hundred development staff where I currently work, I can count on one hand the number who are under twenty-two. Its the same on programming courses. Out of five courses in the past few years, there was only one guy in his early twenties. Most tended to be thirty-somethings. So (just to satisfy my curiosity), a quick straw poll for the coders/ex-coders out there: How old are you now and at what age do you expect to/did stop coding? |
| Tue 07 Jan | Matt H. | I'm a coder who's 26, and I know what you're talking about. I think the real problem is this: Many companies want to hire coders with 3-7 years of experience, about 10 tops. They figure if the coder has > 7 years of experience, the company will have to pay for experience that 'isn't relevant', or, worse, the coder will be 'trapped into cobol thinking.' I'm not saying it's logical, but it's out there. Now, there are lots of options as we get older: (1) Stay at the same company, (2) Become a contract employee/consultant working for a firm ('Hired Gun'), (3) Found your own one-person consulting company, (4) Develop your own products or programming toolkits Sadly, a lot of the whiners (I'm one of them, I can call us that) just want to work as regular employees. We see the possibility of lay-off down the road once we've 'over the hill' and it's scary. Tom DeMarco said 'People Hate Change', and he's right. For some folks, Lay-off could be the beginning of a much more lucrative consulting/contract career, but some people just refuse to see it. For me, I look at the mortgage, tuition, the wife & child at home, and think 'I need to be an employee' - it's a pretty scary trap ... regards, |
| Tue 07 Jan | John Fletcher | Well said, Matt. I can see myself being priced out of the market in a few years but my one salvation is the lack of any new coding talent coming to the surface! Starting my own company is something I've thought about for a couple of years but haven't had the guts to actually go through with it. However, the more I read in discussion groups like Joel On Software and in books like Steve McConnell's, the more I realise it's a step that may come sooner rather than later. While happy with coding, I'm losing my tolerance for mindless rules, regulations and internal politics. |
| Tue 07 Jan | John Topley | I'm 28 and hope to be in a position where I don't have to stop until I retire, assuming it still interests me by then. I have no interest in moving into management. One of the things that I've read that's good about Microsoft is that good programmers can progress up the career ladder without having to move into management. |
| Tue 07 Jan | Jonathan A. | I'm 22 (almost 23, college grad). :) Been programming real applications for about 4-5 years. Been doing 'other' programming for about 10 years. Since I was about 12. I really don't plan to stop anytime soon. I'm currently 'contracting' if you can call it that. I basically build custom developed solutions for small businesses as opposed to contracting as part of a bigger development project. I haven't really been in an environment where I could 'go through the ranks.' My job prior to about a year and half ago was a general computer position that included everything from tech support, server admin, programming, etc. I like the business side as much as I like the programming side therefore I don't know if I'd like it to much in a code shop. That's why I like what I do now. -Jonathan |
| Tue 07 Jan | schemer | I've built about 12 'business' style apps as a FTE and a contractor(server side java, and client/server windows) and could feasibly continue on with this forever. However, I find almost nothing interesting about this type of programming anymore. The projects all begin to seem the same thing over and over, but in the latest 'framework' du jour. I have looked into getting into more obscure/engineering aspects of programming (compilers, audio applications, scientific applications) but unfortunately it seems like there is an inverse relationship between the amount of money one can make and the conceptual difficulty and 'interesting-ness' (in a nerdy sense, I'm a math geek) of a problem. The problems I have are: I don't like to do a mediocre job on things, and to be above average (not great, just above average) requires a massive time committment. I no longer want to spend 70+ hours a week working and learning 'new' technologies. I don't even want to spend 40 hours a week doing this anymore. Even though the money is good, the quality of life is not. I've been trying to figure out a balance for a couple years now and don't see how it can be done. The other issue I have, is that although many methodology books claim otherwise, software is largely a solitary activity, and I feel like I go for huge stretches of time without ever even talking to anyone, aside from giving status reports or asking about some weird thing I find in a legacy code base. I'm trying to get into a career where I interact with people in 'real life' most of the day. To answer the original question, I'm 28 and expect/hope to stop coding as a career within the next two years. However, I do plan on working on an obscure product in my spare time after I 'retire.' |
| Tue 07 Jan | Gregor Brandt | I'm 38 and still going strong. I have had no problems getting development jobs, ever. I also keep up with the times. I read the magazines, practice different techniques and keep my self current. There are lots of programmers my age that call them selves professional C++ programmers that do not know how to use the STL. I think its those people that are giving us a bad name. |
| Tue 07 Jan | old-timer | I'll be 55 in a couple weeks, took my first programming job in 1973. Got an MS CS in 1981. 30 years and still in the game and looking forward to at least 10 more. There's your shelf-life. |
| Tue 07 Jan | rally monkey | 30. getting paid for 7 years. getting out in 5 more, hopefully. |
| Tue 07 Jan | Nathan | 25. been programming for a living for about 6 years. will stop when i don't need the money. |
| Tue 07 Jan | Daniel Shchyokin | 28 and my story is almost exactly the same as schemers |
| Tue 07 Jan | Philippe Back | 32 and stopped being a FTE 4 years ago... when starting my own one-person company. |
| Tue 07 Jan | Robert Chevallier | Almost 37, but no more a programmer (still technical job) |
| Tue 07 Jan | 38_Yr_Old_Non-Geezer | 38 and just starting out. I have done support programming as needed in my roles as a manufacturing and test engineer. After 11 years I realized that the projects I enjoyed the most were the occasional programming jobs. Programming may be a solitary endeavor, but after years of non-stop interruptions to firefight production issues it sounds like heaven. I'm not worried about shelf-life due to burnout, since programming offers a nice balance for my creative and analytical sides. All jobs have politics that can lead to burnout, but at least with programming it's easier to start your own business than most other professions. |