During that 12 week class you spend about a week learning a couple of formulas that you realize will be very helpful when coding accounting software, but just as you're getting into it they switch topics and start teaching you about business management and then spend 4 weeks on "How to use Excel"...
If only they would offer a more specialized class after the introductory course is taken.
This looks like MIT's marketing department is running their learning programmes now
This is nothing new. MIT is known for issuing press releases for their staff and students that read like something that never been accomplished before despite the fact that it's not only been done a long while back some of it is still in practice.
In your subject you claim "Software Engineer" is a myth and in your first sentence you called the term "software engineer" a bit of a misnomer.
I'm pointing out that you're mistaken.
To use your analogy: Automotive Engineers are a myth because all of your generalizations are based on automotive mechanics who aren't known for documenting their work.
Could you imagine if, say, aerospace engineers didn't document their work? Automotive engineers?
A "software engineer" that didn't document their work is a code slinger pretending to be an engineer.
I think you've confused software developers who work in the consumer applications sector (release fast, often and cheaply) with software engineers in the industrial, manufacturing, enterprise, and control systems sector.
I think you mentioned another reason documentation is lacking in FOSS. It gives an incentive towards paying for support.
JavaDocs are only as good as the person writing the documentation. I've seen useless JavaDocs which were nothing more than a list of API calls, and I've seen JavaDocs that were so well done that it could have easily been published to a book.
You'd think they would remember RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. which affirmed that space shifting (from media to hard disk) for personal use was considered fair use under the act.
Those aren't SUVs. They're passenger cars with lift kits installed.
Actually they are a hatchbacks (aka station wagons) but the marketing people renamed them as SUVs to make them more hip and trendy.
hey'd probably get more money because they could hold a vast section of the internet to hostage
The problem is that more people use Windows at home than Linux. This is why Windows is the largest "soft" target.
Linux at home is not immune. Why? Because home users are less likely to be careful about their security and more likely to download malware. They also tend to tolerate software operating slower than normal because they incorrectly associate it with the age of the computer.
Computers running at an enterprise level (aka. the ones running the internet) are harder targets than what you would find running on a personal computer at the typical household regardless of OS .
Again, they do the same sort of thing a CATV does, but by aggregating several discrete receptions across several discrete connections. This to my IANAL eyes is why Aereo should have been allowed to continue until someone changed laws regarding OTA reception and access.
The act used to define and regulate a cable system only specifies that the cable system sends video transmissions directly to the subscriber and makes no mention about the protocol or method used to send that video transmission over wire or cable. So the fact that Aereo used discrete transmissions versus multicasting isn't relevant to the act.