• (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Probably because you're less familiar with courts and how they deal with the law.

    I've found that the markings of an intelligent mind are that one actually explains one's arguments. Everyone else just scoffs and says: "Well, you're wrong, d'oh!"

  • (disco) in reply to Rhywden
    Rhywden:
    I've found that the markings of an intelligent mind are that one actually explains one's arguments. Everyone else just scoffs and says: "Well, you're wrong, d'oh!"

    How did I not explain my argument? The law and dealing with courts is damn complex. I didn't think it was that complex of an argument.

  • (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    How did I not explain my argument? The law and dealing with courts is damn complex. I didn't think it was that complex of an argument.

    Ba dum tish. My argument was that some court proceedings are more complex than others, i.e. it's comparative.

    You said: "Everything is complex, durr!" Which is useless.

  • (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    Rhywden:
    You said: "Everything is complex, durr!" Which is useless.
    Rhywden:
    You said: "Everything is complex, durr!" Which is useless.

    You're ignoring the context. Here, let's pull it together:

    boomzilla:
    Rhywden:
    I highly doubt that more lawyers make a case more winnable, unless it's a highly complex matter (like something concerning tax laws).
    Almost anything involving "law" is highly complex.

    If everything is complex (which it is, when the law and courts get involved), then good lawyers (and often more lawyers) give you an advantage. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

  • (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    If everything is complex (which it is, when the law and courts get involved), then good lawyers (and often *more* lawyers) give you an advantage. I'm not sure what the problem is here.
    I'm still not convinced that more lawyers will yield better quality. Or do you also think that a software project will automagically get better just because you pile on more programmers?
  • (disco) in reply to Rhywden
    Rhywden:
    Or do you also think that a software project will automagically get better just because you pile on more programmers?

    No. I'm not sure why you'd equate the two things.

    Rhywden:
    I'm still not convinced that more lawyers will yield better quality.

    I understand that. At this point, I don't expect you to agree with me, but at least now you understand what I said.

  • (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    No. I'm not sure why you'd equate the two things.

    Why not? You have a special language the layman will have problems understanding, the projects can be complex and daunting in their scope and you may not get what you want or even fail completely.

    Plus, more programmers does not necessarily make a better program.

  • (disco) in reply to Rhywden
    Rhywden:
    Why not? You have a special language the layman will have problems understanding, the projects can be complex and daunting in their scope and you may not get what you want or even fail completely.

    Multiple lawyers can research multiple arguments. Lawyers don't necessarily have to make a coherent case. Lots of variables, but a defendant, for instance could try a strategy of throwing lots of stuff out there and hoping some of it sticks. I suppose plaintiffs could, too, in some circumstances.

    Rhywden:
    Plus, more programmers does not necessarily make a better program.

    Definitely not, but we're talking about two very different domains.

  • (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Definitely not, but we're talking about two very different domains.

    From one point of view, maybe. From another, not so much.

    boomzilla:
    Multiple lawyers can research multiple arguments.

    Multiple programmers can develop different parts of the program. They also don't have to stick to guidelines, they can just wing it and hope it compiles in the end.

  • (disco) in reply to Rhywden
    Rhywden:
    I'm still not convinced that more lawyers will yield better quality.

    There's also a point of diminishing returns. The largest legal teams in court cases generally consist of:

    1. Dozens of paralegals. They do whatever the rest of the team asks.
    2. Maybe 15 junior lawyers. They do most of the legwork, reasearch, and keep things organized for the senior team members.
    3. A handful of senior lawyers.. They take the work from the junior lawyers and distill it down, polish it. They direct the team. But most of all, they are the face of the team. They are the ones that actually meet with the client, show up in court, talk to the other team.

    As with anything, there's always a point where you have just enough people. When you're at that point, if you take some away, then your team starts getting overworked and missing things. If you add people, then they start stepping on each others' toes and getting in each others'way.

  • (disco)

    Let me settle your argument.

    One programmer is not better than many programmers. Many programmers are not better than one programmer

    The right amount of programmers are better than too many programmers. The right amount of programmers are better the too few programmers.

    The right programmer is better than multiple wrong programmers The right programmers are better than a single wrong programmer.

    *replace programmer with any profession.

  • (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    Rhywden:
    Oh, I forget about the shitty US American law system where your coffers essentially determine the amount of justice you get.
    Rhywden:
    I highly doubt that more lawyers make a case more winnable, unless it's a highly complex matter (like something concerning tax laws).

    Ok, this is bizarre. What did you think that first quote means, if not that more money = more lawyering?

    boomzilla:
    Almost anything involving "law" is highly complex. Especially once you start getting lawyers involved.

    Theoretically, there could be a government whose legislative branch was able to do their job in a timely and efficient manner, simplifying decades of accumulated cruft into clear, concise new laws that even non-lawyers would be able to read, rather than constantly trying to find new ways to increase their own power, but I don't think the lawyers would like that.

  • (disco) in reply to Buddy
    Buddy:
    Theoretically, there could be a government whose legislative branch was able to do their job in a timely and efficient manner, simplifying decades of accumulated cruft into clear, concise new laws that even non-lawyers would be able to read,

    I don't think this is even theoretically possible. Real life is just too complex.

  • (disco) in reply to accalia
    accalia:
    the important part ten years down the line would be that i had the diploma, not who gave it to me

    Ok, I just want to mention something about this line of thinking: I feel that it involves a bit too much handwaving about what could be the most important ten years of your career. I too made choices with that type of advice in mind, and saw other people I knew getting jobs straight out of college that I could only dream about. My advice for someone whose goal is to find a good job would be: if you're not gonna go to well-regarded college, and get straight As, don't even bother. A year or two of experience will look far better on your CV than a community college diploma, or a transcript with Bs and Cs on it.

  • (disco) in reply to Buddy
    Buddy:
    Ok, this is bizarre. What did you think that first quote means, if not that more money = more lawyering?

    There are actually two sides to it: The law and its interpretation, and the whole circus surrounding this process. That latter of which can be used to bludgeon people into submission. Doesn't say anything about the former, though, which is what the later part of this discussion was about.

    Buddy:
    Theoretically, there could be a government whose legislative branch was able to do their job in a timely and efficient manner, simplifying decades of accumulated cruft into clear, concise new laws that even non-lawyers would be able to read, rather than constantly trying to find new ways to increase their own power, but I don't think the lawyers would like that.

    Boomzilla already said it: Impossible. Because either you get pretty general laws where everyone understand what it's meaning to control - but then you get the people who use the letter of the law to pervert the intent of the law, i.e. loopholes.

    Or you try to close those loopholes (or at least the largest ones) and you get a tangled mess with exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions of the exceptions (German tax law actually has those).

    That's what regulations are, by the way: Interpretations of the law to hand down rules as to what the laws actually mean in practice.

  • (disco)

    Not sure what the point of this article is. Barely has anything to do with IT. Might as well be physics or a class about sewing.

    http://www.marriedtothesea.com/011515/the-no-fap-report.gif

  • (disco) in reply to chubertdev

    From the sounds of it I think "FAP" refers to something like "SAP", only more satisfying.

  • (disco) in reply to Buddy
    Buddy:
    A year or two of experience will look far better on your CV than a community college diploma, or a transcript with Bs and Cs on it.

    That's true, so long as the experience is vaguely relevant. The main use of that diploma is to get you into that first job in a relevant area; some jobs simply won't bother looking at you without it (or that experience, which is hard to get without the piece of paper).

  • (disco) in reply to boomzilla
    boomzilla:
    Multiple lawyers can research multiple arguments. Lawyers don't necessarily have to make a coherent case. Lots of variables, but a defendant, for instance could try a strategy of throwing lots of stuff out there and hoping some of it sticks.

    You can, but you run the risk of just pissing the judge off. Don't do that.

  • (disco) in reply to Watson
    Watson:
    From the sounds of it I think "FAP" refers to something like "SAP", only more satisfying.
    Students licenses for SAP would likely come with their own student loan.
  • (disco) in reply to Rhywden

    Ok, but as I (believe I) said, aggregating years and years of case law into a single document every now and then would go a long way towards managing that complexity. And such a flat out assertion that something cannot be done always instinctively leads me wonder how hard it has ever been tried. Is there any country where clarity and simplicity of legislature is valued over comprehensiveness? Where you never have to deal with a law that was written decades before you were born, and reflects values that you never held? Where a citizen acting in good faith can have reasonable confidence that the majority of their actions are legally justifiable?

  • (disco) in reply to Buddy
    Buddy:
    Ok, but as I (believe I) said, aggregating years and years of case law into a single document every now and then would go a long way towards managing that complexity.

    That's certainly done in English law; it's the main task of the Law Society. It tends to be done area by area, and they're not in a particular hurry, but it does simplify things a lot over time.

  • (disco) in reply to dkf

    Would you say that the English are more or less litigious than Americans?

  • (disco) in reply to Rhywden
    Rhywden:
    but then you get the people who use the letter of the law to pervert the intent of the law, i.e. loopholes.

    You do, but there are also honest disputes where it isn't clear what the law actually means.

  • (disco) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    You can, but you run the risk of just pissing the judge off. Don't do that.

    Sure. There are limits to everything, etc, etc.

  • (disco) in reply to xaade
    xaade:
    (It was a "text-based" RPG that was interacted with through VOIP.

    So... time to log into my testing system I think!

    Now, I only need to find someone that can read the script for me and doesn't mind uttering the phrase "purple dildo". A lot.

  • (disco) in reply to Buddy
    Buddy:
    Would you say that the English are more or less litigious than Americans?

    I'm not sure how this fits into our arguments about legal systems, but it's a story that should be told:

    After years of legal red tape, the “Jessie’s Girl” rocker has prevailed in a civil lawsuit involving a woman who said she was seriously injured by his buttocks during a 2004 concert ... Springfield told a reporter that he was prepared to fight until the end against the bogus butt charges because he wanted the truth to prevail. ... Calcagno claimed Springfield struck her with his buttocks and knocked her unconscious after he fell while performing in the crowd during the 2004 New York State Fair. The plaintiff said the incident caused her “serious, disabling and permanent injuries.”

  • (disco)

    Welcome to the real world.

    Excellent introduction to the world of software development in most large corporations - from the home-brew broken app framework written by an inept egotistical "boss" who will steal credit for your work, but tell you that your work sucks, to the tight deadline with impossible requirements, to the offsite superficial testing (if any).

    So, do you still want to write software?

  • (disco) in reply to Monarch
    Monarch:
    Many factory workers are not better than one factory worker

    False.

    Monarch:
    *replace programmer with any profession.
  • eric bloedow (unregistered)

    this reminds me of a terrible programming class i got tricked into back in college: "system analysis and design": the entire input of the teacher was: "design a system to do such-and-such"...i can't remember what it was, keeping inventory for a business? anyway, we were expected to use special "design tool" programs for the task, which we had to learn how to use ON OUR OWN TIME (that is, with ZERO INPUT FROM THE TEACHER) with only ONE copy of the instruction manual for the ENTIRE class...and to top it off, the "tool" programs WERE COMPLETELY BROKEN, they would crash on startup! it took several WEEKS after the start of the class to get them functional... and they now inflict that nonsense (hopefully with programs that actually WORK) on everyone who wants an "AAS" degree... it wouldn't surprise me if they also tried to sell the "systems" the students made to the actual businesses that "just HAPPEN to have the same name"...

  • Mike (unregistered)

    I saw the end coming a mile away. Anyone who knows anything about code should know better. Even if they used simple frameworks like .NET or even using Python, it's guaranteed to be a burning pile of bovine feces. What a disgrace.

Leave a comment on “FAP it Good”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article