Many development project don't need a 'rock star'. They can be done with "typical" architectures, existing frameworks, and just need "assembly-line-type" workers for all of the steps. I'd even say "most" projects are like this and any project can survive without a rock star.

There are also different types of 'rock stars' and they can help on even the most basic project. In general, the 'rock star' can do any/all of these things, but what do they do on a day to day basis varies based on their individual "specialty"

* some can architect the "difficulty 10" projects so it can be implemented in assembly-line fashion by "typical" developers

* some can implement the "difficulty 10" projects that wasn't architected well (when a team of N "normal" developers would end up with a late and buggy implementation)

* some can debug like nothing most people have ever seen (they don't usually create difficult-to-find bugs but are a huge asset to the team when the bugs come up which can happen on even the most trivial project)

* some just implement so well (speed of development + lack of bugs) that they literally will be cheaper than a team of N people (so, to the manager they aren't necessary but would be preferred)

* some can mentor, and find other people's strengths, and reorganize efforts on the fly. they can help everyone else be more productive, and can adapt the process/team as requirements change and can be critical to delivering on time and above requirements especially when things go wrong.

* some can help where ever needed (front-end, db, back-end, sysadmin, security, build, etc) and can step in without losing a beat when another member of the team is out (sick, vacation, left for another job).

* some can find bugs in 3rd party libraries or system components (without the source code). find workarounds and/or patch those libraries to continue development quickly while sending the bug fix and appropriate level of explanation to the library developer to get a permanent fix. If you've ever been on a "difficulty 5" project which found a show-stopper bug in a critical 3rd party library during QA, you'll really appreciate this skill. I have seen one case on a "trivial" project where this skill was necessary and a few other cases where it really helped.

I've worked with a very small number of "rock stars" over 30 years. They all had multiple of the above skills. I've worked with 3x as many people who were considered "rock stars" (by themselves and sometimes others) but weren't. In almost all cases, the "fake rock stars" slowed the project down more than they helped and the team would have been better off with one less member.

I have a low-end phone. It came with a number of google apps that "work" (google play music/books/mags, youtube, google+). When I set "automatically update" it gives me new versions that eat up the battery, run in the background when I don't want, or fail to update because they are too big. I can't disable the new apps unless I uninstall back to the original and I can't uninstall the original but only disable it. So I have to update manually and only get the apps I want to update.

scientists can calculate the forcing effect of greenhouse gases with certainty. The IPCC convinces people of that (which should be easy since it's true). Then they switch from talk of forcing to talk of feedback which is what "is going to kill us". There is no certainty of feedback and they don't make a significant claim of certainty but they fail to point out that they've made the switch, so people believe that feedback is also certain.

If feedback is so deadly, we need to be talking much more about soot, aerosols, urbanization (not urban heat islands), deforestation, greenhouse gasses other than CO2 and other man-made causes of warming (pro-AWG scientists are no longer denying these and they add up to more warming than CO2). We also need to worry about potential heating of the sun or other natural causes even if we don't expect them because, if feedback is what the models say, ANY cause of warming will kill us and there has been warming before without man-made reasons.

Most people I worked with in the 80s (and learned from in the 70s) had a good feel for concepts like "stable systems", "structural integrity", "load bearing weight", and other physical engineering concepts. Many from engineering degrees (most of them weren't CS grads like me), and a lot from playing with legos, erector sets, chemistry sets, building treehouses (and real houses). These concepts are just as important in software systems, but I can only think of a handful of people I've worked with over the last 20 years who had a feel for the stability of a system (physical or software) or an ability to find system weaknesses when a bug is found rather than fix a programming error.

That's very important for development time and quality. To go fast you need to know where it's important to go slow. You have to know what's important to get right at the start (structurally) so you can change requirements as needed and not risk breaking the system or requiring a lot of rewriting (or refactoring). Your framework should be a stable "frame" for the system (like a building or car), not a set of libraries you cobble together for speed of implementation. After deploy, "bugs" are easy to fix but system weaknesses are not.

On the other hand, a lot of things have improved. Tools, methods, and specializations allow a team to be comprised of some people who understand systems (architects, senior developers) and others who specialize in certain areas (html, db, communication protocols, builds, etc). And there are many more people available who are capable in specific areas so far more teams can exist doing many more applications. If we only had the same percentage of people writing software now as in the 70s & 80s and those people had the backgrounds developers had then, we'd be producing better software but orders of magnitude less of it.

but, they are watching everyone and that includes a lot of people who's decisions affect me. If they are collecting information illegally, who's to say they won't use it illegally. For example to influence congressional oversight or even to tilt a campaign toward the congressman who is more likely to be pro-NSA.

On a less 'conspiracy theory' line of thought, the CEO of my global company may decide that the US isn't the best place to do business.

So, even though they don't care about me, their collection of my information can affect me in big ways since that collection is part of a big, poorly-targeted surveillance system.

Hosed my machine. The usb system restore I made before I started won't work (boots but can't recover). Resinstalling now. 20+ years installing from NT to Windows 8 and this is the first time I remember that I haven't been able to recover from a command prompt (which I can get now) or the restore media (which I have) or a live cd. I have a small SSD for c: with junction points to other drives for some of the bigger directories (users, program files, etc) Maybe it didn't like that.

He seems to want to focus on the 300 "numbers only" they checked and not the big database of "phone records" that exists. But I'm sure the "database of millions of U.S. phone records" he refers to is at least as secure as the existence of the program itself. It's not doubt more secure but that doesn't mean it's safe. And many attackers would love to just get a handful of records (congressmen, judges, candidates, ceos, opposition party leaders).

Plus I've already heard quotes from politicians and other government officials that the database needs to be more widely shared. FBI and DHS need access now. I imagine the IRS could find a few things and "improve" tax collection if it was shared with them. We better not get used to being ok with the NSA having access to "numbers only". The nature of government is to expand and make "better" use of data, not to ignore a valuable resource because of privacy concerns. And also to protect those in power, so any 3rd party leader making progress better have a squeaky clean record. One place the 2 parties can agree is on attacking any opposition to their power.

Instead of spending so much time writing about social needs and advancing their own "journalism" or "pundit" careers, they should put 80-100 hours/week into anti-problem entrepreneurship.

if your survey includes mostly people who do those things you'll get different answers but this survey was almost entirely of people who don't print 3D guns.
I wouldn't be surprised if surveys found that 53% of the population said any of these if the survey is mostly of people who don't do them

I don't buy 16+ ounce sodas. Nobody should.

I don't drink. nobody should.

I don't smoke. nobody should.

I don't vote republican. nobody should.

I don't get food stamps. nobody should

I don't own a gun. nobody should.

I don't send my kids to private school. nobody should.

I may go months without a change (other than adding) then make changes daily for weeks. I make a change when I decide "something's in the wrong place" or lot's of things belong together or a folder has gotten too many bookmarks. If that involves creating a new folder, the effect may cascade as other folders shrink and get removed or combined until everything feels right again. But I don't do it all at once.

At least for most companies. Most nerds don't have a clue about the document management tools and processes that managers selected (especially 10+ years ago). And also don't understand the government regulations around documents.

It took me almost 8 years of training before I accepted that "copy it to a DVD" isn't a records management process for a large company. Everyone in my company has mandatory yearly "records management" training and as you move up in management, you have training to learn more and more about the reasons. And when you have a bogus (or legit) law suit against you requesting "every mention of X-Corp in all company documents", it makes sense why it's important to destroy records AND record the destruction so the lawyers can respond with "Here's ALL records and here's proof that we don't have anything else".

I know one company that keeps track of cost per document. The average per jpeg image is over $17,000 over it's lifetime. For some images, a lot of that is production or licensing. But most of it is managing the licenses. Even if a developer makes an image for a web site they keep a record of who/when/why/etc so the lawyers can respond when someone claims it was stolen. That all has to be stored, indexed, backed up, accessed, etc. A stack of DVDs in a warehouse somewhere does nothing but cost money. And takes a lot of time to find what you want if/when it's needed. Better to be able to say it doesn't exist for documents that you aren't required by law to keep or have a reasonable expectation that they will be involved in a law suit (in which case you maintain them in the records management system). As much as I dislike SCO, I'd guess they have a lot of records that shouldn't be involved in any lawsuit. If they destroy records that hide a crime, that's a different issue.

The manager who hired me out of college 30 years ago said he doesn't care about GPA. He cares about the lowest grade candidates got in any course, and the GPA in courses outside your major. It's been pretty accurate in showing

* does the candidate take pride in everything they do (i.e. no C or D in a class they don't like)
* does the candidate get along with many types of people (i.e. no C or D because "the professor didn't like me")
* does the candidate do a good job in things that aren't a primary focus (i.e. non-major classes)

A single low grade becomes an interview question ("why?"). It may be a sick relative or other reasonable distraction that semester. A pattern of occasional low grades over 4 years is a red flag since the candidate is likely to be asked to do things they don't like or work with difficult people over their career.

If you're a student, you may want to consider that before blowing off a class since it won't hurt your GPA. If you're a hiring manager that hires 3.0-3.5 range grads, you may want to take it into account if you don't rather than just looking at GPA.

yep. Or, I could have easily taken the pic then backed up and changed my choice. But, my neighbor who wants me to come turn on her computer after the power goes out may not realize that there are alternatives to posting her actual ballot (either from lack of know-how or fear of being caught).

Think of the emails we've been seeing that employers have sent to their workers. I think many of those employers would love to see how everyone votes. If showing your ballot becomes the norm, I'd expect "someone" at the business to start throwing a "we voted" party with a slideshow of everyone's ballot. You may want to keep yours secret, but "everyone does it" so make sure to send your pic to the party organizer to prepare the slideshow. And if you don't care about employers seeing votes, maybe you care about unions, churches, schools, bar owners, or neighborhood thug. Best to not allow proof of votes if we care about keeping them secret.

But I used a one-click payment button so I had to take it down.