Forgot your password?

Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software 586

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the elitism-at-its-finest dept.
theodp (442580) writes Over at Alarming Development, Jonathan Edwards has an interesting rant entitled Developer Inequality and the Technical Debt Crisis. The heated complaints that the culture of programming unfairly excludes some groups, Edwards feels, is a distraction from a bigger issue with far greater importance to society.

"The bigger injustice," Edwards writes, "is that programming has become an elite: a vocation requiring rare talents, grueling training, and total dedication. The way things are today if you want to be a programmer you had best be someone like me on the autism spectrum who has spent their entire life mastering vast realms of arcane knowledge — and enjoys it. Normal humans are effectively excluded from developing software. The real injustice of developer inequality is that it doesn't have to be this way." Edwards concludes with a call to action, "The web triumphalists love to talk about changing the world. Well if you really want to change the world, empower regular people to build web apps. Disrupt web programming! Who's with me?" Ed Finkler, who worries about his own future as a developer in The Developer's Dystopian Future, seconds that emotion. "I think about how I used to fill my time with coding," Finkler writes. "So much coding. I was willing to dive so deep into a library or framework or technology to learn it. My tolerance for learning curves grows smaller every day. New technologies, once exciting for the sake of newness, now seem like hassles. I'm less and less tolerant of hokey marketing filled with superlatives. I value stability and clarity."

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 464

It ain't "loss of vision". There is no vision to lose. They don't see anything and drive around using instruments and maps.

Also, "fatal scenarios" under water involve being crushed by pressure or drowning, while "fatal scenarios" in the air involve crashing and burning instantly.
Not really much of a difference, but at least it is quicker. Panic beforehand being about the same.

Besides... the point, AGAIN, is not about what happens to the passengers or the pilots.
It's that lovely radioactive propulsion and cargo in the water tubes and how everyone is OK with that being chauffeured around in a tube with no windows.

Comment: Re:Nope... Still irrelevant... But thx for the str (Score 1) 464

Wow... You really got your head so far up your ass that you REPEAT the same straw men you just got pointed out and called on? While adding some more...

So it's no longer just putting numbers in my mouth, ranting about irrelevant trivia and ignoring the points of conversation, it's distorting my words too...

I'm talking about airplanes the size of an airplane this system was designed for.
I.e. It's an AIRBUS.

By the way, you first claimed you were talking about an Airbus, now you say you were talking about a 747. You do realize that Boeing makes the 747 and not Airbus, right?

That... that makes no sense. It's too simple to pretend that you missed the meaning.
And you can't be able to spell words like "talking" and not be able to comprehend 4- and 2-letter words like "size", "of" and "an".
It's too lame to be a troll...

So you ARE insane!
Words get read but don't register properly cause you live in a delusional state of comprehension of the world around you.
Phew! Glad we got that out of the way.

I do wonder if you're actually allowed to fly planes, or is that just your delusion too?

Comment: Nope... Still irrelevant... But thx for the straw. (Score 2) 464

I'm talking about airplanes the size of an airplane this system was designed for.
I.e. It's an AIRBUS.

While you rant on about "single engine GA aircraft", "airport departure" and ILS and VOR conditions under which you WON'T attempt landing - though I clearly talk about LANDING AN AIRPLANE THE SIZE OF A 747.
You're straw-mening.

I say:

A 747 lands at 172-207 mph. That's about 276-333 kph. Or 76-92 meters per second.
Meaning that they need AT LEAST 100 meters of visibility in order to see the ground 1 second before touchdown.

To which you reply:

There is no "1 second" rule. And your 100m == 1 second puts the aircraft at 194 knots. That's faster than landing speed. That's more than twice what a single engine GA aircraft will be going.

So take your pick.
You are either an idiot who thinks that 747 is a "single engine GA aircraft", landing is same as taking off, and the process of landing is the same as NOT landing, and who has difficulty reading or remembering numbers (note the speeds listed and the speed that you claim I listed)...
OR you are trying to push your limited experience in one field as an appeal to authority argument against logic by setting up a straw man or few.
Which makes you a liar and an asshole.

All your "I fly air-o-plains" talk means squat. But nice of you to share that.
I could never on my own present so adequately how fundamentally wrong your understanding of the situation being discussed really is.
Nor how self-righteous and smug you are about it.

Comment: But of course it's not... just keep repeating that (Score 1) 247

They just want to eliminate paroles, abolish insanity and diminished capacity pleas, and trial kids as adults.
While privatizing prisons.

How did you put that?

NOT LIBERTARIAN to allow private organizations COMPLETE CONTROL of the freedom of an individual, whether that individual is a child or not.

Well shit... You better start informing those people that they are not real Scotsmen.

3. Get Tough on Real Crime

In part because of the diversion of resources to fight victimless crime (see above), real criminals increasingly escape punishment. As Figure 2. shows, the cost a criminal can expect to pay for committing a crime has declined for 20 years, while crime rates have steadily increased.

The Libertarian Party believes that individuals should be held responsible for their actions. This includes swift and certain punishment for those guilty of committing violence or fraud against others.

But today, criminal sentences seldom mean what they say. On average, a criminal will serve only 37% of any sentence imposed. As a result, 51% of all violent offenders are released from jail after serving two years or less, and 76% were released after serving four years or less.

When a Judge imposes a sentence, the criminal should serve that sentence. Parole and other forms of early release should be severely restricted. Virtually every study on the subject has shown that parolees have a high recidivism rate. For example, one 1987 study found that 69% of parolees were rearrested within six years of their release.

One deeply disturbing trend is the increasing tendency to excuse individuals from responsibility for the crimes they commit. From the "Twinkie defense" to the Menendez and Bobbitt trials, juries have been too willing to excuse a defendant's guilt. Insanity and diminished capacity defenses should be abolished or severely restricted. The insanity defense can be replaced by a plea of "guilty but mentally ill," which would enable the offender to receive medical help, but would still require him to serve the appropriate sentence for his crime. The use of alcohol or drugs should never constitute an excuse for criminal conduct.

The juvenile justice system should be radically revised to ensure that juveniles are held fully accountable for the crimes they commit. Juveniles commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. From 1982-1991, the number of juveniles arrested for murder or manslaughter increased by 93%. In 1990, individuals under the age of 21 were responsible for one-third of all murders. Yet, only 5% of violent juvenile offenders are tried as adults. In some states a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to serve a term past the age of 25 -- no matter how serious the offense. Juveniles who commit adult crimes should be tried as adults and pay adult penalties.

While scrapping welfare cause poor breed on it like rats. Eating, fucking and committing crimes all day.

5. Address the Root Causes of Crime

The root causes of crime are no mystery. As Peter Greenwood, a criminal justice expert with the RAND Corporation explains, "We know the risk factors for violence and what creates it. Kids being born into poverty, to parents who can't take care of them." It is our current social welfare system that has created the risk factors that breed crime.

Nearly all social scientists agree that there is a direct link between out-of-wedlock births and social problems such as crime and drug abuse. For example, one study found that children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. Another study found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single-parent households were twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father was present. With the rate of out-of-wedlock births now over 22% among white women and over 60% among blacks, increased violence and crime is virtually inevitable.

At the same time, social scientists link the skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births with the availability of welfare. The Department of Health and Human Services found that a 50% increase in welfare benefits led to a 43% increase in out-of-wedlock births. A second study found that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150%.

This is not to say that a woman will choose pregnancy as a means to go on welfare. But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid pregnancy. A decade ago Charles Murray called for a radical solution to this problem, "scrapping the entire federal welfare and income-support structures." Time has shown Murray to be right.

But my comment was more along the ways of how libertarians tend to be sniveling, selfish, greedy cowards who will gladly take from the community wherever they can while refusing to reciprocate or share their own.
Also, they tend to be idiots.

Comment: No. (Score 3, Interesting) 526

by denzacar (#47407537) Attached to: Foxconn Replacing Workers With Robots

But then the problem is that there is no incentive for anyone to keep the factories running.

There is no MONETARY incentive for factory workers to create additional profit, above that which is needed for maintaining a monetary status quo, or a very slight profit above it.

There are plenty of other incentives though.
Ever tried to beat your own score in a game? How about collecting all the special items or unlocking achievements?
Anyone paid you for that? Did you get a badge? Or a shirt? How about a citation in front of your peers?
How about your grades in elementary school? Did you get monetary incentive according to your grades and was that your primary motivator?
Fucking? Do you get paid for that? How about eating?

From personal pride of one's work to various propaganda techniques appealing to various human prejudices, from "think of the children" to "Uncle Sam needs you".

Armies are the example of just such an arrangement.
They "belong directly to the public, with what is essentially a 100% "tax" on all profits".

Plus, the workers get a chance to be killed and/or maimed while making almost no money for themselves.
Who'd want to work at a place like that, right? No incentives will bring you back from the dead.
And yet...

Monetary motivation is just the cheapest and easiest to work with, giving the lowest results. Very few people would put their life on the line for "just money".
Millions of people put their lives in danger every day with no hope of monetary compensation.
Doing it "for their community".
Not "for their capital".

Comment: It's not "Gotta be a Superman outfit or nothing".. (Score 1) 247

It's "Why do they have to be dicks about it?" deal.
And no.
"Because copyright", "because trademark", "because association with death" or "cause everyone would be starving their children to death then just to get a Superman statue" is NOT a valid answer.

Being dicks about it is hurting them far more. They chose that. So be it...

Comment: Re:Superman logo is a Trademark (Score 1) 247

What, then, did Reeve or Reeves ever do that was super?

He served as a board member for the Charles Lindbergh Fund, which promotes environmentally safe technologies. He lent support to causes such as Amnesty International, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and People for the American Way. He joined the Environmental Air Force, and used his Cheyenne II turboprop plane to take government officials and journalists over areas of environmental damage. In the fall of 1987, 77 actors in Santiago, Chile were threatened with execution by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. Reeve was asked by Ariel Dorfman to help save their lives. Reeve flew to Chile and helped lead a protest march. A cartoon then ran in a newspaper showing him carrying Pinochet by the collar with the caption, "Where will you take him, Superman?" For his heroics, he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Bernardo O'Higgins Order, the highest Chilean distinction for foreigners. He also received the Obie Prize and the Annual Walter Brielh Human Rights Foundation award.[44] Reeve's friend Ron Silver later started the Creative Coalition, an organization designed to teach celebrities how to speak knowledgeably about political issues. Reeve was an early member of the group, along with Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, and Blythe Danner.[45]

Reeve left Kessler feeling inspired by the other patients he had met. Because he was constantly being covered by the media, he decided to use his name to put focus on spinal cord injuries. In 1996, he appeared at the Academy Awards to a long standing ovation and gave a speech about Hollywood's duty to make movies that face the world's most important issues head-on. He also hosted the Paralympics in Atlanta and spoke at the Democratic National Convention. He traveled across the country to make speeches, never needing a teleprompter or a script. For these efforts, he was placed on the cover of TIME on August 26, 1996.[69] In the same year, he narrated the HBO film Without Pity: A Film About Abilities. The film won the Emmy Award for "Outstanding Informational Special." He then acted in a small role in the film A Step Towards Tomorrow.[70]

Reeve was elected Chairman of the American Paralysis Association and Vice Chairman of the National Organization on Disability. He co-founded the Reeve-Irvine Research Center, which is now one of the leading spinal cord research centers in the world.[citation needed] He created the Christopher Reeve Foundation (currently known as the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation) to speed up research through funding, and to use grants to improve the quality of the lives of people with disabilities. The Foundation to date has given more than $65 million for research, and more than $8.5 million in quality-of-life grants.[71][72] The Foundation has funded a new technology called "Locomotor Training" that uses a treadmill to mimic the movements of walking to help develop neural connections, in effect re-teaching the spinal cord how to send signals to the legs to walk. This technology has helped several paralyzed patients walk again.[73] Of Christopher Reeve, UC Irvine said, "in the years following his injury, Christopher did more to promote research on spinal cord injury and other neurological disorders than any other person before or since."[74]

In 1997, Reeve made his directorial debut with the HBO film In the Gloaming with Robert Sean Leonard, Glenn Close, Whoopi Goldberg, Bridget Fonda and David Strathairn. The film won four Cable Ace Awards and was nominated for five Emmy Awards including "Outstanding Director for a Miniseries or Special." Dana Reeve said, "There's such a difference in his outlook, his health, his overall sense of well-being when he's working at what he loves, which is creative work."[75] In 1998, Reeve produced and starred in Rear Window, a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1954 film. He was nominated for a Golden Globe and won a Screen Actors Guild Award for his performance. On April 25, 1998, Random House published Reeve's autobiography, Still Me. The book spent eleven weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list and Reeve won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album.[76]

Throughout this time, Reeve kept his body as physically strong as possible by using specialized exercise machines. He did this both because he believed that the nervous system could be regenerated through intense physical therapy, and because he wanted his body to be strong enough to support itself if a cure was found. In 2000, he began to regain some motor function, and was able to sense hot and cold temperatures on his body. His doctor, John McDonald of Washington University in St. Louis, asked him if anything was new with his recovery. Reeve then moved his left index finger on command. "I don't think Dr. McDonald would have been more surprised if I had just walked on water," said Reeve in an interview.[77] Also during that year, he made guest appearances on the long-running PBS series Sesame Street.

In 2001, Reeve was elected to serve on the board of directors for the company TechHealth, headquartered in Tampa, Florida, which provided products and services for severely injured patients. While serving on the TechHealth board, Reeve participated in board meetings and advised the company on strategic direction. He refused compensation. He made phone calls to the company's catastrophically injured patients to cheer them up. Reeve served on TechHealth's board until his death in 2004. After his death, Dana Reeve took his board seat with TechHealth until her death in March 2006.

In 2002, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center, a federal government facility created through a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention non-compete grant,[78] was opened in Short Hills, New Jersey. Its mission is to teach paralyzed people to live more independently. Reeve said, "When somebody is first injured or as a disease progresses into paralysis, people don't know where to turn. Dana and I wanted a facility that could give support and information to people. With this new Center, we're off to an amazing start."[70]
Reeve discussing stem cell research at a conference at MIT, March 2, 2003.

Reeve lobbied for expanded federal funding on embryonic stem cell research to include all embryonic stem cell lines in existence and for open-ended scientific inquiry of the research by self-governance.[79] President George W. Bush limited the federal funding to research only on human embryonic stem cell lines created on or before August 9, 2001, the day he announced his policy, and allotted approximately $100 million for it. Reeve initially called this "a step in the right direction," admitting that he did not know about the existing lines and would look into them further. He fought against the limit when scientists revealed that most of the old lines were contaminated by an early research technique that involved mixing the human stem cells with mouse cells.[80] In 2002, Reeve lobbied for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001,[81] which would allow somatic cell nuclear transfer research, but would ban reproductive cloning. He argued that stem cell implantation is unsafe unless the stem cells contain the patient's own DNA, and that because somatic cell nuclear transfer is done without fertilizing an egg, it can be fully regulated.[82] In June 2004, Reeve provided a videotaped message on behalf of the Genetics Policy Institute to the delegates of the United Nations in defense of somatic cell nuclear transfer, which was under consideration to be banned by world treaty.[83] In the final days of his life, Reeve urged California voters to vote yes on Proposition 71,[84] which would establish the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and allot $3 billion of state funds to stem cell research.[85] Proposition 71 was approved less than one month after Reeve's death.

Comment: Nope. (Score 1) 247

Ironically, this incident was the result of nanny-state interference. The claim was that the boy's parents were abusive, but they don't say much about that other than some "allegations of shaking". So the state takes the kids away and sticks them with some truly evil monsters and apparently didn't do much of a job of checking up on them to see how it was all going.

Children's Aid Societies are NGOs who "receive funding from, and are under the supervision" of the government but their nannying is quite autonomous.

Also, they can operate without order or warrant.

Apprehension without warrant

(7) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,

(a) a child is in need of protection; and

(b) there would be a substantial risk to the childâ(TM)s health or safety during the time necessary to bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 47 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2),

may without a warrant bring the child to a place of safety. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 40 (7).

All they need is to believe.

One might say that CAS are private organizations who are given a lot of liberty and leeway with their work and in their judgement.
With obviously little control or oversight.
Sounds a bit libertarian to me.

Particularly the part where they take the money from the government but refuse ceding any control to the government even while acknowledging their own faults and that they would not have happened HAD there been more control.
While happily accepting even more money "for training" from the government.
And refusing government investigation into their work on account of it being "expensive".

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 464

One... make up your mind.
You can't argue both greater tolerance of accidents and fatalities AND have submarines built and handled in a way to make crashes more survivable.
One negates the other.
Either submarines are designed in such a way that the crashes are more survivable OR potential fatalities and accidents are ignored in the design.

Two... You're missing the point of the argument. FUCK THE PEOPLE ON THE SUBMARINE.
Take them outside on the deck, fuck each of them in the ass and kick them overboard to drown. OK?
Leave just the skeleton crew necessary to drive around a metal tube with no windows, which runs on a NUCLEAR REACTOR, while chauffeuring nuclear missiles around the globe.

Now... Does your average airplane passenger lose sleep due to THAT fact? It's probably been going on for his/her whole life.
Of course not! And why should he/she? I mean... it's just nuclear missiles.

Comment: Re:Irrelevant points there... (Score 1) 464

As for fog, yes, in the daytime there is light, just a lack of visibility. Until you fly out of the fog and need to see to land.

Oh I get it! You're a bubble-boy!

You never actually saw fog in real life. You imagine it as some sort of thin layer of smoke.
You never walked along the street with people appearing and disappearing around you. At noon. In full daylight.
Or driven along the road at 10 km/h, fog lights on, and it looks like there are clouds rushing at you.
Or looked out of the 10th floor window not seeing anything below you but clouds.

Pilots never get to see the ground if there is fog. They are seated 9 meters off the ground in a, say, 747.
If the visibility is at 10 meters, they can MAYBE get a hint of it just before they touch the ground. Unless they blink.
A 747 lands at 172-207 mph. That's about 276-333 kph. Or 76-92 meters per second.

Meaning that they need AT LEAST 100 meters of visibility in order to see the ground 1 second before touchdown.
It's ALL on instruments.

Same goes for rain or snow. 100 meters of visibility - 1 second of space in front of them.

Comment: Re:Quite... (Score 1) 464

I'd like a strawman with a side order of false dichotomies, please?

Inquire at the offices of the grandparent poster then, between hours of 9 and idontknow.

"fucking flawless" is a quote. Note the quote marks and exaggerated italics. And the repetition of the phrase.
And the entire post is not there for informational accuracy or insightfulness but as a jocular reply, ridiculing the inherent illogical qualities of GPs post.

As for "blind trust in the technology" - you already got that.
Or do you think that pulling on that yoke will magically start working should fly-by-wire cut out?

Comment: Irrelevant points there... (Score 1) 464

1 - random Joes don't get to fly them anyway. "Highly trained volunteers" do. And they already do it that way.
2 - there is no light in the dark, rain, snow, fog... so windows would be useless
3 - people looking around don't drive the sub. And how would Joe feel about just before landing, seeing the copilot tie a rope around himself and walk out on the wing and start waiving hand and yelling "To the right. Right! NO! MY RIGHT!"?
Maybe that would help keep him calm? How about while taxiing before takeoff?

As for "cleared for visuals"... so?
Nobody said anything about blinding the pilots and having them fly by waiving their penises inside a bowl of sensor-jello.
The whole point of the system is to give them BETTER visuals, which incidentally can't be blinded with a $5 laser pointer.
And should their electrical systems fail during the landing procedure... they are fucked anyway.
It's all done through computers anyway. No pulling on that yoke will do any good unless there's power to run the controls.

And all of that is besides the point.

The point is that everyone is perfectly fine with world's nuclear arsenal being chauffeured around in a tube with no windows, but "OMG! They want to transport people that way!?"
And those protesters...
Last I heard they switched to saving whales. Or dolphins. Or some other thing you probable never even heard about.
Anti-nuke is so passe. Grandad.

Comment: Quite... (Score 1) 464

They do NOT land "because someone thought a cool new gadget would be fucking flawless".
"Because someone thought a cool new gadget would be fucking flawless" is the answer to WHY they land at all. Instead of crashing and burning up in a fiery inferno of fire.

That "someone" is usually some institute or some other place full of eggheads doing pointless research.
And boy, they are researching so much pointless stuff, pretty soon they're gonna be out of things to research.
Stupid eggheads. They're gonna be out of a job then.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.