From: Lew on
Ivan Marsh wrote:
> The 1950's [sic] were totally awesome.

Oh, yeah - the twin evils of McCarthyism and Communism. Racism. Sexism. The
Cold War. Superpowers playing chess with smaller countries. Wars everywhere.
Dictators. Massive stockpiling of nuclear and chemical weapons. Rapine of
the planet. The birth of AIDS. Hideous fashions.

Totally awesome.

--
Lew
From: Ivan Marsh on
Lew wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> The 1950's [sic] were totally awesome.
>
> Oh, yeah - the twin evils of McCarthyism and Communism. Racism. Sexism.
> The
> Cold War. Superpowers playing chess with smaller countries. Wars
> everywhere.
> Dictators. Massive stockpiling of nuclear and chemical weapons. Rapine
> of
> the planet. The birth of AIDS. Hideous fashions.
>
> Totally awesome.

The complete lack of sarcasm...


--
"All right, all right, if it will make you happy, I will overthrow society."
  - Philip J. Fry
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on
Lew wrote:
> MarkusSchaber wrote:
>>> I won't dispute that money is a motivator, but it is not the most
>>> efficient motivator. The more money you pay, the more you will attract
>>> those developers which are purely after the money, and not the really
>>> good ones. For the latter ones, a certain level on the paycheck is
>>> enough to give attention to fun, excitement, atmosphere and such
>>> factors.
>
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> I once joked with an employer that if he paid me twice as much I would
>> only have to work half as long :-)
>
> Given that nearly nobody gives a perfect working environment, or even
> close, money is the primary distinguisher. As a contract worker, I've
> seen a few dozen IT workplaces. The grass is never greener. Offer me
> twice as much compensation as the other potential employer and my
> talents are yours to exploit.
>
> It's not that money is the motivator. The question is leading and
> extremely ill cast. I don't depend on anyone else for my motivation.
> Money is the decider; it decides whether and where I work. It doesn't
> determine how.
>
> To get meaningful answers, the survey would have to ask meaningful
> questions.
>

Some places you go, however, you never want to return.
They are real tech sweatshop hellholes with everyone looking for a new
job. Last place like that I was at the boss said: "This project is
behind schedule and if it is not on time heads will roll. I am now off
on holiday". I suspect he returned to an empty office.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Ian Collins on
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Feb 8, 1:43 am, James Kanze <james.ka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 3:14 pm, Patricia Shanahan <p...(a)acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> That said, by definition professionals are, to some extent, in
>>> it for the money. If they were not, they would be amateurs as
>>> I am now. How that is balanced against interesting work,
>>> physical working conditions, status, etc. varies.
>> I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same conotations
>> in English as it does in French, but from the French meaning, I
>> don't think you can be truely a "professional" if you're only in
>> it for the money. "Professional" implies being paid for what
>> you do, but it also implies a certain degree of personal
>> standards with regards to quality and such---a "professional"
>> will take pride in his work.
>>
> Strictly a "professional" is someone who is a member of a professional
> body which regulates itself and has the right to control entry to the
> profession.

In some contexts maybe, but golf and cricket clubs had their
"professional" long before anyone thought of developing software. It
isn't the term "professional" that has been bastardised, it's "Engineer".

--
Ian Collins
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Feb 8, 1:43 am, James Kanze <james.ka...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 3:14 pm, Patricia Shanahan <p...(a)acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> That said, by definition professionals are, to some extent, in
>>> it for the money. If they were not, they would be amateurs as
>>> I am now. How that is balanced against interesting work,
>>> physical working conditions, status, etc. varies.
>> I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same conotations
>> in English as it does in French, but from the French meaning, I
>> don't think you can be truely a "professional" if you're only in
>> it for the money. "Professional" implies being paid for what
>> you do, but it also implies a certain degree of personal
>> standards with regards to quality and such---a "professional"
>> will take pride in his work.
>>
> Strictly a "professional" is someone who is a member of a professional
> body which regulates itself and has the right to control entry to the
> profession. For instnace I can't simply buy scalpels and antiseptic
> and set myself up as a brain surgeon - I have to go throguh the
> British Medical Association before they'll let me chop people up. the
> same is true for lawyers, accountants, and some other more obscure
> niches.
>
> Most people aren't professionals, and the word has become misused to
> mean 'skilled workers with high standards'. Bascially employers want
> the advantages of professional status without conferring on their
> employees the control that is the natural concomitant.
>
> Computer programmers are rarely professionals in the true sense, but
> ususally professional in the bastardised sense of the term.

Come to Britain where we have "boffins" or occasionally "eggheads" and
where the gas company will send round an engineer to fix your appliance.
Or, if he cannot manage it, a technician (yes - that's what they really
said).

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show