From: Bill Gunshannon on
In article <8693tjFkloU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <8666vqFdchU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
>> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> writes:
>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see the IT business in the USA as being in any sort of
>>>>> different condition than any other business in the USA... but
>>>>> perhaps my vision is limited, aye.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sadly. I agree. But that doesn't decrease the cesspool that the IT
>>>> indistry is sinking into. And, as a real IT Professional I am more
>>>> concerned about my art than others.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A thought-provoking post, Bill.
>>>
>>> Is IT today an "art" or an "occupation", a "science" or something
>>> else entirely?
>>
>> Do the semantics really matter? I used the term "art" as a literary
>> device. I could have just as easily used the term "profession" with
>> no change in meaning.
>>
>
> Yes, I thought afterwards that you may not have inended the same use of
> "art" as I did.

Well, I refer to a codicile of Patent Law that states one can not patent
something that is "intuitively obvious to a practitioner of the art".
This was the useage of 'art" I was going for.

>
>
>>>
>>> There was a time when IT was a mysterious cult. The practioners were
>>> like wizards practising a dark art that the general public regarded
>>> with awe and suspicion.
>>
>> Yeah, I keep hearing this but to be honest, I have never seen any more
>> of this in IT than in engineering, science, medicine or even Sports
>> Car mechanics. (Trust me, tuning a pair of 40 DCOE Weber Carbs is
>> much
>> more art than enginering and the 2 triple Solex on a Porsche 911T the
>> same!!)
>>
>
>
> It's a very good example...
>
>>>
>>> (Robert Townsend, in his 1970 classic, "Up the Organization" spoke
>>> of IT people as "Magicians" who cavorted in front of the mainframe
>>> casting spells and "building a mystique, a Priesthood, their own
>>> mumbo-jumbo ritual to keep you from knowing what they - and you -
>>> are doing." From what I remember of the time this was pretty
>>> accurate.)
>>
>> Sorry, as I said above I never saw anythng that fits this description
>> and certainly nothing differnt from other fields that required a lot
>> of obscure knowledge the common man never acquired.
>
> Well, I did. I remember many of my colleagues at the time considering
> themselves superior to the peple who consumed their service. They saw
> "computer programming" as a closed shop and they loved the fact that it was
> regarded with awe by the general public. On one memorable occasion in the
> mid 1960s I was at a party where one of my colleagues actually said (in a
> louder than necessary voice): "Well, speaking as a COMPUTER PROGRAMMER..."
>
> He was interrupted by a fairly drunken Scotsman who had a much better grasp
> on Reality.
>
> "COMPUTER PROGRAMMER?!!! Ye're just a Space Age, CLERK, Laddie..."
>
> The room dissolved in laughter and I have never forgotten the incident.

You do realize that sounds more like Billy Connely than reality.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> In 1965 only a very small percentage of the general public had any
>>> idea of how a computer worked or what was involved in programming it.
>>
>> In 1968 only a very small percentage of the general public had any
>> idea
>> how a Porsche or Alfa Romeo worked or waht was involved in tuning it.
>>
>> In 1968 only a very small percentage of the general public had any
>> idea
>> how an HW-101 worked or what was involved in actually makign it work.
>>
>>>
>>> Programming was an "art" inasmuch as it sought to optimise things
>>> (like space against time) in a way that could not be taught but
>>> relied on the intuition and imagination of the programmer.
>>
>> Apply same to my two examples above.
>>
>>>
>>> As the technology progressed these constraints were removed
>>> (processor speed increased thousands of times and memory space
>>> became so vast that the need to save a few bytes here and there
>>> disappeared).
>>
>> Not really, but that seems to be what we are teaching today. Thus the
>> bloated code that people use ontheir PC's everyday.
>>
>
> And yet working applications are still being produced... :-)

I have seen "working" cars on the road around me. Sstalling at
traffic lights, spewing smoke and unable to climb a small hill.
There is a difference between good and just working.

>
>>>
>>> Standardised approaches and "best practises" were developed. In
>>> terms of "art" that would be like painting with numbers.
>>
>> And many of them abandoned even though they are still needed as what
>> was once a profession was tossed like pearls before the swine.
>
> That would be imitation pearls cheaply manufactured in Asia and the
> sub-continent, but pearls nevertheless.
>
>>
>>>
>>> With the advent of "personal" computers in the early 1980s and the
>>> subsequent explosion of their use throughout the 1990s and the first
>>> decade of this century, to the point where millions of people have a
>>> programmable "computer" in their pocket, ability to write software
>>> became available to anyone who had an interest in it.
>>
>> Sadly, there are a lot more people with this "interest" than with the
>> actual ability. Funny how we say, "If it were easy, everyone would do
>> it." when talking about something as simple as baseball and yet we
>> willingly accept that anyone can be a computer programmer.
>>
>>>
>>> Today, millions of people write programs and scripts. A whole
>>> generation is growing up with computer technology and taking it for
>>> granted the way they do a TV, refrigerator or washing machine.
>>
>> In most case, very badly.
>>
>
> I guess it is arguable and comes down to how you measure "success".
>
> If a program "works" it can't really be "bad" (certainly not as "bad" as one
> that doesn't work :-))

Arguable point very much depending ont he definition of the term "working".
I guerss some of us have higher standards than others.

>
> On the other hand if efficienct and elegant code are factored in, then even
> a "working" program may not be so good.

Glad to see yoyu at least accept this as an option.

>
>
>>>
>>> Millions of people also draw, paint, sculpt, and throw pots, but
>>> whether the results are "art" or not is something to be argued over
>>> a beer. :-)
>>
>> Exactly. Writting a program does not make one a programmer any more
>> than painting something on canvas makes one an artist..
>>
>
> But if the result is pleasing to people then it is arguable that it is
> "art".

Actaully, it is not the public who decide what is and is not "art".
If a million people like a painting it still isn't going into the
Louvre without the approval of a very small and select group of
people. SWe are back to the same thing I pointed out above. One
does not receive the appelation "Chef" because they can cook. they
have to meet a very strict criteria controlled by their peers. So
too with doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and most other
serious professions. And yet, an kid with a Linux box in his mom's
basement is suddenly a "computer professional". What is wrong with
this picture? Not sure? take a good look at the industry around
us. Unless, of course, things are very different in NZ than they
are in the rest of the world!! And, especially the US.

>
>
>
>>>
>>> (The bottom line is that "art" is very subjective, hence "I dunno
>>> much about art, but I knows what I likes...")
>>
>> And while the art world is very selective about what is "art" and who
>> is
>> an "artist" the IT world accepts any and all comers no matter how bad
>> their product.
>>
>
> As noted above, it seems to hinge on how we define "bad".

Or maybe, we should be looking at "not good" compared to "good" as,
just as you stated previously, something can be "bad" by some definition
and yet still maintain basic functionality.

But, let's try comparing it to other "professions" and see how it comes
out.

Doctor removes apendix. Leaves 24" gapping scar. Was the surgery "good"?
Well, he did, in fact, remove the diseased appendix.

Lawyer handles your lawsuit. Wins case. Judge awards you %10 of your
losses leading up to the case. Lawyer was "good". He won the case.
But I believe this is would be what we call Pyrrhic Voctory.

Both did the minimum requried to accomplish their task. No one would
be satisdfied with the result and it is unlikely thier peers would
allow them to continue. And similar examples from engineering could
be contrived. So, why then does the IT Profession n ot look on it
self the same way? Especially when one looks at the life critical
and world impacting potential of some of what we do.

>
>>>
>>> Computer Science is taught as an adjunct to many University courses
>>> or as a specialised course of study in its own right.
>>>
>>> Note that they don't call it "Computer Art" (although that is also a
>>> specialised area of computer use).
>>
>> It should be noted that Computer Science is not accepted as a Science
>> by
>> any of normal Sciences. No CMPS Course here is accepted as meeting
>> the "Natural Science" requirements of the Gen Ed portion of all
>> degrees.
>> And to add insult to injury, while in the long run they didn't win the
>> argument, there were strong objections to relocating the Computing
>> Sciences Department in the currently under construction University
>> Science Center.
>>
>
> It is interesting to see "professionals" being so jealous of each other.

Jealousy has nothing to do with it. The biggest difference is wether
or not "The Scientific Method" is a part of the art of the practice.
The normal Sciences hold that it si not in the case of Computers and
I have seen no argument to the contrary from my colleagues.


>
>>>
>>> So is IT an Art?
>>>
>>> I believe it was once, but not any more. Today it can be taught and
>>> learned like any other branch of Science.
>>
>> I don't agree. I watch many students change major away from CS and
>> CIS because they find they do not have waht it takes to do this job.
>
> I embrace your right to disagree; there wouldn't be much discussion if we
> all agreed on everything. :-)
>
> Nevertheless, I think there is a difference between a subject being able to
> be taught and people having a desire or aptitude to learn it.

Anything can be "taught". It is not the teaching that is in question.
It is more a matter of wether or not a person can learn sufficient
enough to be a true practitioner of the art. Aaagain, the same is true
of other fields. I have been "taught" to play several musical instruments.
You don't want to sit thru a one man concert by me. I kow all the
mecahnics of playing these instruments but the noise that comes out
of them at my hands would hardly be considered music. It, most certainly,
would be the notes on the page played in order, but that isn't music.

>
> Perhaps I should rephrase:
>
> "Given a person has average intelligence and a desire to learn, I believe a
> computer programming language like, say, COBOL can be taught to them."
>
> I believe this because I have actually done it.

I have no doubt that anyone can learn the semantics of COBOL. Writing
a program is a totallyu different matter. I know all the gramatic
nuances of english. I have a vocabulry of thousands and thousands of
words. But, I can't write poetry.

>
> Now, we can probably both agree that knowing a language doesn't make you a
> "programmer", but given experience, "best practises", "patterns" and the
> ability to see relationships between things (one of the definitions of
> "intelligence"), then they can become a programmer,

Good point, except that I don't believe anyone can.

> just as they could
> become a dentist, a lawyer, or any of the so-called professions.

Anotehr example that supports my point. Do you have any idea how many
Pre-med's change major in their sophomore year. :-) Same for Pre-Law.
You realize how many Pre-law grads can't pass the LSAT? Engineers?
we have a lot of people who start out in the engineering program and
end out with a Liberal Arts Degree.

>
> Another way of putting it would be that none of the professions have
> practitioners who were born to do it. The skill is an acquired one. However,
> they have degrees of differing skill within the profession.

Oh, I agree with that 100%. The disagreement is with the very modern
notion that anyone can do anything. It has never been true and it
is just as untrue today, political correctness aside.

>
>
>
>> I have seen many people in the real world who have IT jobs but are
>> totally incapable of actually creating functional programs.
>
> I have seen one or two, but definitely not "many". I encountered one guy who
> had worked in a corporation for 18 months and never got a program to execute
> successfully. :-) I don't blame him, I blame the idiots who were supposed
> to be managing him.

I would blame management, too. For hiring him.

>
>>
>>>
>>> So that leaves us with "Professional".
>>>
>>> Can you make a living entirely from IT knowledge? Possibly, but the
>>> field is shrinking. These days, technical knowhow simply isn't
>>> enough. You need understanding of the business and the whole picture
>>> (a bit like Professor Deming's "Profound Knowledge") to successfully
>>> design, build, and implement useful computer systems.
>>
>> I don;t think the fieeld is shrinking at all. Quite the contrary,
>> there
>> are ore IT jobs today than there have ever been in the past.
>
> I just checked JOBSERVE UK for COBOL... they are showing a total of 22,148
> IT jobs, of which 10 are for COBOL.

Well, there is more to the IT world than COBOL. :-) You stated it 22,148
IT jobs in the UK. Not a bad percentage of the population. But over here
I can find lots of COBOL jobs. Ssadly, for me at least, they aalmost all
require "current CICS experience". But, again, we are not just talking
about COBOL, but about the industry in general.

>
> I remember checking in 1981 and finding the total jobs was around 8,000 with
> over 4000 requiring COBOL.

Two things. First, as I said, industry is growing, not shrinking. Your own
numbsers support that 8000 -> 22000. As for COBOL, I can think of a number
of reason to explain these differences based on my own experience and none
of them really mean a decrease in positions.

1. Most hiring is being done using "boiler-plate". I have seen jobs
advertised for VAX/VMS Administrators when the machine in question is
actually an Itanium, very different from a VAX. But, it was a VAX when
the job description was written. And HR is slower to change than the
IT world.

2. COBOL programmers tend to be much less mobile than, say, Java programmers.
Their jobs tend to be stabler and they have little reason to move. Fortran
Programmers were pretty much the same.

3. The majority of COBOL over here today is done on "mainframes". That means
IBM and UNISYS for the most part. I expect because these groups still have
fairly active User Communities it is much less necessary to rely on things
like Monster or Dice to fill their needs.

Several years ago, I applied for COBOL job. I got interviewed. At the
interview they dropped the bombshell. Theyu were not interested in
hiring me for the COBOL job. They wanted me for my Unix expertise. They
were in the middle of a major expansion of their IT infrastructure and
were planning to hire a couple hundred new COBOL people. They were having
no problem getting them which was why they would not consider me for a
COBOL job. (It was that CICS thing again!)

I can do a job search of the government and find available COBOL jobs
at any point in time. Sadly, they are in a certain major metro area where
I used to live and will never go back again.


>
> On these figures you are correct and the field for IT jobs is expanding.
> Obviously, the definition of what constitutes an "IT job" has expanded too,
> but I'll stand corrected.

Well, unlike other true professions, it seems to have degenerated.

>
>> But,
>> sadly, anyone can claim to be an IT Professional today. It happened
>> mostly after the dot-com bust over here when you had high-school
>> computer geeks who ran
>> a Linux website from their mom's garage claiming to be "unemployed IT
>> Professionals" when they couldn't get a real job. (We actually had a
>> kid show up here wanting to be granted credit for his vast experience
>> running "a computer consulting business" while he was in high school.
>> Needless
>> to say, he wasn't graned the credit and he never finished the program.
>>
>
> He probably can buy and sell both of us put together by now... :-)

Aactually, most can't. They spend most of their time jumping from job
to job giving the industry a bad rap. My point being they should not
be allowed to identify themselves as "IT Professionals" any more than
I can identify myself as an "Engineer" because I had an Eerector Set
when I was kid. Or a Chemist because I had a Chemistry Set.

>
>>>
>>> So what exactly, in today's terms, is a "real IT Professional"? (are
>>> there "imaginary IT Professionals"? :-))
>>
>> That is the real question. And, it is somethig the profession needs
>> to establish but not int he manor it is being done today by creating
>> all
>> these "Certification" programs who's sole purpose is to create another
>> way to make money while delivering no product.
>>
>
> I agree 100% on this. I am quite sure it is a revenue generator more than a
> "professional" qualification. (I base this on havng worked with some of the
> "graduates"...

And the result is serious harm to the whole industry. Something other
Professions do not tolerate.

>
>>>
>>> And if the whole industry is "descending into a cesspool", as you
>>> claim, how would you go about flushing it?
>>
>> Many years ago there was talk of certifying IT Professionals. I was
>> against it and based on what we see today (MCSE, CCNA, etc.) I was
>> right. But I think there needs to be some sort of certification done
>> by some (as yet non-existant) body. But I am not holding my breath
>> and expect
>> to retire while things are still just as bad.
>>
>>>
>>> Interested to hear your thoughts.
>>
>> Posted above.
>>
>
> Thanks for that. I think you made some good points.
>
>
>>>
>>> I don't personally have a such a pessimistic view. I believe IT is
>>> being subsumed into other fields of endeavour and I don't think it
>>> is a bad thing. The pursuit of pure IT research is being left to
>>> Acadaemia. (In the old days we used to do our own experiments to
>>> find what was good and what was not...) The addition of computer
>>> technology has led to major breakthroughs in fields like Medicine
>>> (could you imagine cataloging the Human genome with filing cards, or
>>> even punched cards or paper tape?), Engineering (simulation of
>>> earthquake damage has led to better building design in many
>>> countires affected by eartuakes, including NZ), Communications
>>> (could we run the worlds networks without computers?), and many
>>> other fields of endeavour. (In fact, increasingly, just about EVERY
>>> field of endeavour.)
>>>
>>> Companies are increasingly moving to outsource their IT
>>> requirements, or divest themselves of the old IT Development Centre,
>>> largely because they don't need it any more. IT for many companies
>>> now consists of network maintenance and rollout of new software or
>>> packages (NOT written in-house).
>>
>> That's a big pendulum. It has swung in both directions. Sadly, many
>> companies today are trying to burn their boats even though many are
>> also seeing that move was a mistake.
>>
>>>
>>> As understanding and expertise has proliferated away from the hands
>>> of the few and into the hands of the many, the "old school" form of
>>> IT Professional has become less relevant.
>>
>> Only if you actually believe that "understanding and expertise has
>> proliferated away from the hands of the few and into the hands of the
>> many"'. Like I said, writing a program doesn't make you a programmer
>> any more than putting paint on canvas makes you an artist.
>
> True. Nevertheless, I have had to deal with some "amateur" efforts that were
> really excellent. As in most fields of endeavour, an enthusiastic amateur
> can often achieve the same levels of proficiency as a less passionate
> professional.

Never said there weren't exeptions. But they are just that, exceptions.

>>
>>> Today we have "network specialists",
>>> "database specialists", "package specialists", "business
>>> specialists", "configuration specialists" who all consider
>>> themselves to be "IT Professionals".
>>
>> And there you have the crux of the matter. They consider themselves
>> to
>> be IT Professionals. The sad part is that too many others also accept
>> this self-claimed appelation deserving or not.
>>
>>>
>>> It isn't confined to Programmers and Analysts any more. (Maybe in
>>> companies whose business is software development, but not in general
>>> terms for most commercial organisations.)
>>>
>>> The world has changed and the IT world has gone with that change.
>>
>> But the IT world has gone in a direction that has been totally
>> rejected
>> by other fields. Even if you graduate from college with an
>> engineering degree in most states you can not refer to yourself as an
>> engineer until
>> you have been certified. Or, our other example. Paint something and
>> try to get a reputable galarey to show it. Get a degree in education
>> and try to get a job as a teacher. And yet, run a Linux box in your
>> basement for a year and suddenly you are an IT Professional?
>>
>
> Excellent examples. You have a valid point.
>>>
>>> Personally, I like it better now than I did 40 years ago.
>>
>> To each his own, but it does not bode well for the industry.
>>
>> bill
>
> Thanks for the responses, Bill.
>
> I read your post with interest.
>

I would love to visit NZ. I have a feeling that things are very different
in that neck of the woods than just having differnt wildlife.

All the best.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: Howard Brazee on
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Alistair Maclean
<alistair.j.l.maclean(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

>> One thing that I have in common with the young people - I don't wear a
>> wristwatch. � �I've got a phone in my pocket, so why do I need a watch
>> on my wrist?
>>
>
>In case the phone in your pocket falls out and breaks. You could just
>ask a passer-bye but then where would you find one at 03:42 a.m.?

I suppose I could wear a watch on each wrist - in case one breaks.

But at 03:42 a.m., I would roll over in my bed and check my alarm
clock - if for some reason I was awake and needed to know the time.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on
On Fri, 28 May 2010 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT), Alistair Maclean
<alistair.j.l.maclean(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

>> (I was a pilot, and I've ridden the vomit comet, so let me make that
>> outrageous claim).
>>
>
>I presume they clean it between flights but I can't help but think
>that the stench of puke would persist. Does it smell? (the vomit comet
>and not puke).

I didn't notice any odor when the flight started. The padded walls
were plastic covered. I've also used the plastic bags that I kept
in the sound protector ear covers that I wore on the flight line. In a
fighter craft if someone can smell my mistakes, then he knows that his
mask isn't on correctly.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on
On 1 Jun 2010 13:51:11 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

>Actaully, it is not the public who decide what is and is not "art".
>If a million people like a painting it still isn't going into the
>Louvre without the approval of a very small and select group of
>people. SWe are back to the same thing I pointed out above. One
>does not receive the appelation "Chef" because they can cook. they
>have to meet a very strict criteria controlled by their peers.

What kind of peer review does someone have to become a Chef? I am
unfamiliar with such.

If a professional cook does not choose to call himself a chef is he
still a professional?

>So
>too with doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and most other
>serious professions.

What do you call the person who graduated at the bottom of his medical
school class?

>And yet, an kid with a Linux box in his mom's
>basement is suddenly a "computer professional".

Is he making a living from it?

And yet, a kid who doesn't make it past AA baseball is a "sports
professional".

>What is wrong with
>this picture? Not sure? take a good look at the industry around
>us.

What am I supposed to look at? Should I see a correlation that
indicates that people in industries that limit titles produce better
work than people in industries that are more open?

Should I be observing that programmers with CDPs are significantly
different from programmers without CDPs?

>Unless, of course, things are very different in NZ than they
>are in the rest of the world!! And, especially the US.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Bill Gunshannon on
In article <kkaa06d3l0baq9mlcnedln29lokgsophvt(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> writes:
> On 1 Jun 2010 13:51:11 GMT, billg999(a)cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> wrote:
>
>>Actaully, it is not the public who decide what is and is not "art".
>>If a million people like a painting it still isn't going into the
>>Louvre without the approval of a very small and select group of
>>people. SWe are back to the same thing I pointed out above. One
>>does not receive the appelation "Chef" because they can cook. they
>>have to meet a very strict criteria controlled by their peers.
>
> What kind of peer review does someone have to become a Chef? I am
> unfamiliar with such.

Other Chefs. That's why there are Chefs and Cooks. I'm a great cook but
I will never be a Chef. You start out by going to an acredited Culinary
Institute and after graduation you apprentice and eventually, if your
good, and lucky, you get to become a Chef.

How about Architects? They have one of the toughest fields to get
into (I know first hand cause my daughter tried!!)

>
> If a professional cook does not choose to call himself a chef is he
> still a professional?

Yeah, a professional cook. But not a Chef.

>
>>So
>>too with doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants and most other
>>serious professions.
>
> What do you call the person who graduated at the bottom of his medical
> school class?

The same thing you call a guy with a PHD in Philosophy. And without
the blessing of the AMA and a licensing board in the state he chooses
to set up shop they both have the same chance of practicing medicine.

>
>>And yet, an kid with a Linux box in his mom's
>>basement is suddenly a "computer professional".
>
> Is he making a living from it?

Most of them don't.

>
> And yet, a kid who doesn't make it past AA baseball is a "sports
> professional".

If by AA you mean Minor League, yes. So what? There are 100 times more
who don't ever get to play again after they finish school. Who got to
decide if they made the cut? They don't get to make the decision that
they are Professional Ballplayers themselves. They try to get a job
doing it and someone (depending on the sport, lots of differnt people)
decides if they are Professional calibre or not.

>
>>What is wrong with
>>this picture? Not sure? take a good look at the industry around
>>us.
>
> What am I supposed to look at? Should I see a correlation that
> indicates that people in industries that limit titles produce better
> work than people in industries that are more open?

Well, if engineers designed buildings with the failure rate of
major IT systems the papers would be full of them. Even the
recent crisis over highway bridges is more about state run
maintenance than design. The fact that more bridges haven't
fallen down is a tribute to the abilities of the engineers.

On the other hand, in the IT industry we continue to see repeated
instances of the same errors we talked about 30 years ago. Remember
the Therac? Still making that mistake. Ever read The Risks Digest?

>
> Should I be observing that programmers with CDPs are significantly
> different from programmers without CDPs?

CDP?
Cisco Discovery Protocol?
Continuous Data Protection?
Chemical Dependency Problems?

>
>>Unless, of course, things are very different in NZ than they
>>are in the rest of the world!! And, especially the US.
>

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>