Second Chance

Author: dev7

  • on http://slashdot.org

    on http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/07/25/0329226.shtml Cliff wrote:
    “What do you do if your productivity drops to two lines of code a day, and you just sit and stare at the code and feel like you don’t know how to do it anymore?…”
    this is just like something I’ve been going through for a while. and it has been troubling me.
    there’s this long thread on the topic, with some good advice, like take a break, drink more caffeinated beverages, and one poster writes:
    The c0der cocktail: (use at your own risk)
    ——————————————-
    Once Daily:
    *5-HTP – 100mg
    *Vitamin/Mineral supplement
    With a meal: (3 times daily)
    *DHEA – 25mg
    *Ginko Biloba – 80mg – 24%GF
    *One of:
    – Ephedrine – 20mg
    – Adderall/Ritalin – 1 dose
    – Ginseng – 2 doses
    Another writes:
    Give yourself some credit: you are probably not some lazy lowlife.
    There are easier ways to make a living than this. So what’s the
    problem? I have no idea, but you do.
    There’s obviously SOMETHING that’s actively preventing you from
    focusing properly on the job at hand, and you probably know what it
    is.
    this is good, and true and important to consider..
    my own take is that there’s at least two aspects to the problem.
    lots of respondents to the original posting focused on one aspect — the psychological and technical aspect — and ways to address those issues.
    the second aspect of this problem rests on the structural basis of the work. is it a personal project for fun, research or perhaps life-long learning? is it work in which you hold equity? is it work for hire? paid by the hour, by the job or salaried?
    the reason this is important is that in the case where the work is being done for a personal project, or for a business enterprise in which you hold significant equity, there is no ethical dilemma. you will be rewarded to the extent the work done is valued by whoever you need to sell it to. no more, no less. the problem will take as long as it takes, or you may just drop it in favor of some other more interesting task, perhaps returning when you are ready. you are free.
    but in the case of work for hire, there is a business ethics question around one’s failure to provide services (or at least inefficiency and delay). the implicit contract between employer and employee rests on the concept of programming work being some sort of “labor” and the exchange analogous to buying and selling a commodity in some sense.
    but obviously in cases like this, the thought product is different in some important way from any commodity in general and conventional labor in particular. there is a creative element, and it is a deficiency of the work-for-hire employment model that creates the ethical dilemma.
    if the problem is simply that you don’t know what you’re doing, then get trained up fast! on your own time, thank you! this career requires life-long learning. there is no shame in that, as long as you do nothing under false pretences. if you just can’t get trained, for whatever reason, consider changing careers.
    there is also this gray area called marketing. individuals selling their skills are no different from any other vendors, and are entitled to emphasize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. we don’t have to like it in any objective sense, that’s just the way business works, and there’s nothing wrong in that. but when you find yourself in a bind, unable to deliver work already promised, then I guess you have some fast talking to do, there’s no two ways around it.

  • our thought for today, is "what exactly are property rights?"

    our thought for today, is “what exactly are property rights? where do they come from? what are their limits?”
    its prompted by a passage I discovered in howard zinn’s “a people’s history of the united states” where he’s talking about let’s say the rise and fall of the IWW. if you don’t know this story already, please stop reading right now, and find out. its an education, let me tell you. its the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say that you can’t even begin to have a conversation with folks about the nature of our nation, what really happened, not the fairy tales they tell you in high school history.
    in this passage, a fellow is incarcerated, given bread and water for three months, and finally sentenced to life in prison, basically for making a speech.
    yes, this is America, ca. 1912.
    in his speech the fellow was alleged to have said “to hell with the courts, I have seen their justice.”
    that was basically his indictment. he was charged with inciting to riot, and imprisoned.
    in his defense, he denied the allegation, saying he hadn’t said that in his original speech, but after three months in jail, he affirms the thought. “to hell with you,” he says to the judge, “I have seen your justice.”
    not the most able defense, I think, but what do you want from an anarchist?
    he goes on to say (more or less), “you have invented this right, this property right, which supercedes all other rights, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to the pursuit of happiness. because the greedy, wealthy are not satisfied with their wealth, their rapacious appetite will not be satisfied until they own everything, they control everyone. this is why we fight their wars, this is why we rot in their prisons, this is why we slave in their mines and their fields.”
    so this brought to mind the question, “are property rights even mentioned in the constitution?” I don’t think so. that’s interesting, because our anarchist friend does have a point. on the other hand the specific enumeration of rights in the constitution is not intended to exclude other rights not mentioned. but that’s sufficiently vague as to be subject to very wide interpretation.
    property rights are a fundamental aspect of what’s called english common law, in turn derived from roman law. so they may be assumed, in some sense, without need for enumeration. but in this era, where let’s say there’s conflict between the good of the people and the property rights of a few, the precise nature and bounds of these rights are in need of examination.

  • today's fun fact

    today’s fun fact:
    Ralph Nader’s recent book “The Good Fight:…” was published by an imprint of HarperCollins called ReganBooks. HarperCollins is owned by NewsCorp, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch.
    Ok. now what are we to make of this fact? In the first place, Murdoch has a history of using his assets to influence political decisions that benefit him economically. NewsCorp’s flagship news outlets are unabashedly partisan. In some cases, partisan to the point of propagandist. For example, 70% of folks who identified Fox news as one of their primary news sources, when polled about certain facts regarding the casus belli in Iraq were factually misinformed.
    But on the other hand, given the premise of enormous concentration of the publishing industry, how is one to get a book published without involving oneself with some kind of wacky multinational corporation? And if one is a real threat, then one will certainly not get heard.
    So the question here is not about Murdoch’s motives, but Nader’s. What the hell do they have on the guy to make him choose to be such an obvious pawn?
    And then to take this creature and have it mouth the truthful words of outraged righteousness, its at once brilliant and frightful in its deviousness. Because it smears the truly righteous outrage with the tar of the pretender.
    Its a clever ploy. Like the agent provacateur, only in reverse.
    It has worked many times before, and worked so well, that we are unaware of it.

  • religious faith is so flexible

    religious faith is so flexible. in the face of obviously contradictory evidence, we have devised increasingly
    elaborate schemes to explain the apparent discongruity between what we believe and what we observe.
    a careful reading of new testament scripture, even just focusing on the canonical body, but even more so when
    one takes into account contemporaneous apocrypha as contextual, we see that many if not all of the most devout
    of Jesus’ followers were convinced that the end days were imminent. Jesus himself alludes to it elliptically
    and ambiguously once or twice, “Amen I say to you, the day is coming soon…”
    but in the intervening millenia, the day Jesus referred to appears not to have come, and well, let’s say, it
    gives new and unexpected meaning to the word “soon”.
    we don’t let that get in our way, however, as we focus on other aspects of the message.
    it is in this way that the political dialog around war runs in a circular argument. we enter an
    ill-conceived, wrong-headed engagement applying the full the force of our massive military, with “shock and
    awe” tactics.
    the policy is informed by a kind of religious faith, that while referring to a desirable end state, does not
    provide us with a rational path from where we are to that result.
    we “sell” the war using fabricated evidence, and mislead ourselves as to our ultimate objectives. first, we
    tell the world that we have hard evidence that a rogue nation is in possession of functioning nuclear,
    biological and chemical weapons, and that this nation is threatening to use those weapons agains us and our
    “friends” (meaning, of course, israel, though curiously no one ever says it out loud).
    the public is not given specifics on all this, but our allies in the u.n. and nato remain unconvinced after
    being briefed. their stubborn refusal to accept the lies results in a complete breakdown in communication,
    and active calumny, with some in the administration insinuating the recalcitrant allies are cowards or worse.
    so we go in, pretty much alone, guns ablazing. we accomplish the objective of rendering the nation a
    disaster, and ultimately removing the dictator. but then things start to go terribly wrong.
    now, no weapons were found despite a multimillion dollar nationwide hunt. so we respin the motiviation for
    the war as that of “liberation” of a people from their oppressive dictator. nevermind that the people didn’t
    ask to be liberated, perhaps they dared not, but how many other evil despots are there in the world? are we
    to depose them all? and replace them with what?
    assuming we did want to, which we obviously don’t in the case of dictators friendly to us, such as musharraf
    of pakistan in particular, and others too numerous to mention, assuming we did want to rid the world of
    despots, do we really have the capacity? do we even have the right? some cases may be more clear cut than
    others.
    that’s my point. things aren’t so simple as our current administration seems to think.
    and so, we “liberate” a nation, that seems to be at least as interested in liberating themselves from us as
    they were in liberating themselves from their tyrant, but things go terribly wrong.
    hundreds die, daily bombings and attacks take several u.s. lives each day, and those few friends who did join
    us in the early days of the war are withdrawing.
    and with each reversal, in the world of the faithful, the argument for renewed committment grows stronger —
    we can’t let those lives be lost in vain. to quit now would be disaster — like an article of religious
    faith, its a circular argument that justifies itself, and is not subject to rational analysis.

  • here's something to think about

    here’s something to think about.
    apparently, the bush family, having interest in oil, has a long standing and deep relationship with the saud family. bob woodward in his recent book writes that saudi prince bandar learned of the us intent in iraq before colin powell did. (powell denies it.)
    bush also appears to have strong support in both the american jewish community and in sharon’s israel. bush’s relationship with sharon doesn’t appear too close, but he pretty much lets him do whatever he wants.
    it just seems odd to be able to manage both.

  • The truth sometimes hurts

    The truth sometimes hurts.
    Even though G.W is one of our own, despite the fact he was born in Connecticut, and he’s the grandson of a senator from Connectictut, the great-grandson it turns out of two different wealthy bankers from New York and Connecticut, and he’s spent summers at his daddy’s summer house in Maine since he was knee high to a bean pole, as he might be inclined to say, despite his patrician roots. One time partying at daddy’s summer place, he was busted for DWI. But the record was somehow magically erased, like a year or two of his supposed national guard service, … he’s just a good ‘ol country boy who cheated his way through Yale and Harvard. What you see is what you get.
    But the truth is we have two and (discounting extreme conspiracy theories) only two theories of what happened on 9/11. We call them the “incompetence theory” and the “operation ignore” theory.
    The “incompetence theory” is that espoused by the supposed liberal media such as NPR and David Corn of The Nation, but also by others, including folks like Richard Clarke, the NSC Counterterrorism Coordinator at the time, who apparently was running the situation room on 9/11 while Bush was somewhere over Nebraska, the rest of the White House had been evacuated and Cheney and Rice were in some bunker somewhere. But the incompetence theory is also espoused by respected analysts such as none other than Austin’s own Stratfor.com.
    The incompetence theory holds that there undoubtedly were pockets of knowledge, which put together in retrospect, seem to indicate that various agencies of the government (as well as proxies such as British and Israeli intelligence operating within the US with our government’s knowledge and consent) had information which, in context, indicated a major operation against “symbols of American power” was being planned, but that these various pieces of the puzzle were not connected due to “institutional compartmentalization.”
    There are a number of specific problems with the incompetence theory as put forth, but it would be premature to presume in the absence of facts that an intelligence failure of this magnitude was due solely to “institutional compartmentalization.”
    Unfortunately, the facts may very well never be known, especially if they put the current administration in an unfavorable light.
    While, as a general rule, it is unwise to attribute to active conspiracy what can be explained by simple greed or incompetence, neither assumption is a substitute for the facts. We, the American people, are assumed to acquiesce to the notion that we can never know the facts in any useful detail due to “national security concerns.”
    Putting aside the obvious objection that the event has already occurred — we have already been attacked — we are told that we should not pry too deeply into the why and wherefore of what was and is known about the attacks and the attackers. “Just trust us” we are told, by the very folks who claim their own incompetence led to this tragedy.
    On the other hand, the “Operation Ignore” theory put forth by folks like former Treasury Secretary O’Neill, Former CIA Director Tenet, who both served directly under President Bush, as well as some other well-informed individuals who presuppose that these compartmentalized facts may in fact have been synthesized into analysis, and that analysis had in fact been presented to the people responsible for policy formulation, but was intentionally ignored, because it jarred with preconceived notions of who America’s most dangerous enemies were.
    So, our candidate must choose: either he’s a bumbling incompetent, or he’s a moron being manipulated by a small group of neo-conservatives toward ends only dimly perceived, and certainly unexamined.
    Neither would seem to be a commendation for reelection.

  • history will show

    history will show that wolfowitz was a highly placed israeli spy.

  • forgetfulness dust

    here’s an idea for a children’s or youth oriented story: of a whacky inventor type who hijacks a crop duster, big mystery, why is he doing that? … and it turns out he invented this magic forgetfulness gas … and what’s he doing? he’s being chased by the cia to the middle east … he’s taking the crop duster to there, and he’s flying over jerusalem, and he’s spraying forgetfulness gas over everybody….
    and as a result, he solves the eternal problem.

  • it happened again today

    it happened again today. I found myself alone in my office with a couple of Indians talking about the “offshore problem.” its positively surreal.
    here’s how it goes:
    we’re trying to sell a thing, but our customers might be able to spec it out to an outsourced vendor. Indian vendors are particularly attractive these days because their costs are astonishingly low and their quality is quite high, they speak english fluently, and they’re very aggressive. in addition, they often benefit from educations at american engineering schools, and I suspect sometimes numerous informal relationship networks developed over the past few decades of immigration and h1-b visa guest workers. all this overlayed on a global business context in which there are essentially no rules.
    we’re agressive too, in our own way, asking an astonishingly high price for a product not yet proven in the market.
    but here we are, discussing our strategy, and how we can respond to our customer’s demands, and we add up how much it will cost us to do it, and when we can get it done, and the numbers aren’t what we want them to be. and then it becomes clear that we could solve some of our problems by using an offshore company.
    on the one hand these guys are in some ways in the same boat as me. one is a naturalized american citizen, the other a permanent resident, and they’re not crazy about the prospect of losing their jobs. both were educated in the states, and never went home. but the one who’s an american citizen has a brother-in-law who works for tata. there isn’t an insurance company in the country who hasn’t long ago outsourced large chunks of their it departments to his company and others like it. besides insurance companies, his clients include many others as well, such as the red cross, the imf, etc.
    his brother in law is upset because he is himself being undercut by another upstart Indian company called infosys.
    “the law of the jungle” I say.
    we all laugh.
    “we need to be twice as smart” I say. pausing at the irony when I say ‘we’, but also pondering that I myself am an immigrant of sorts, to Texas from New York for no good reason, staying only because the job market for computer jockies seemed more robust than anything I remembered from the northeast in the ’70s. not to mention my grandparents coming to the states for similar reasons, and in the end, maybe I have more in common with these Indians than I do with many Texans, New Yorkers or Irishmen.
    “the ROI equation is based on a cost-benefit ratio. if you halve the cost for constant benefit, you win. that’s what’s happening. but what if you double the benefit for the same cost? that could be a reasonable defense.”
    “but you have to stay alive long enough for the benefit to become apparent. the productivity benefit may not be measurable for a year or more. the cost benefit is measurable immediately. ” my friend says.
    “yeah, and business decisions are based on quarter over quarter results. besides,” I say, “we’re not twice as smart.” we all laugh again, but I suspect my friend. I have seen him smile and laugh reflexively at what might be considered inappropriate times, such as when someone gets laid off. he smiles like a shark.
    “all this makes sense as long as you’re computing the ROI of pure labor. but what we’re supposed to be doing is developing new product. that’s a creative process that’s not so easy to spec out in advance and send offshore.”
    my friends nod.
    “but we’re not doing that either” I say, and we all laugh again.

  • lucy baffer in '39

    in 39 lucy baffer started to get sick.
    at first she thought she was pregnant
    then she thought she might be going through change of life.
    she hated doctors, so she didn’t really know…
    then she had a terrible hemmorage, and finally had to be taken to the doctor,
    turned out she had ovarian cancer, and it was too far gone to treat.
    she declined through 40, and finally died.
    her husband, jack, said it was a miracle how his business expanded suddenly just as he needed the money.
    he worked for the dixon crucible company, selling graphite as an industrial lubricant up and down the connecticut industrial belt up from brooklyn to new haven and back.
    she got radiated, having tattoos on her body to show where the radiation marks should be
    once she wore a lambskin coat, one of her few luxuries, because it was cold in the hospital. the radiation exuding from her body after the treatment, caused the coat to get cooked.
    first they gave her morphine for the pain, then snake venom to break down the resistance to the morphine.
    it was terrible,
    her daughter, my mom met my dad in 39.  her mom lucy was in bed when she and nanny met,
    from her bed she said “you two look like the cat who ate the canary” referring to my mom and dad.
    lucy finally died in 2/1/42
    “my father was under such stress”
    she didn’t learn until 41, when she went to bed, and couldn’t get up.