ut
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:46 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Naughty!
>
>
> Hal Kaplan wrote:
> > =>
> > => And 95% of all statistical claims are made up on the fly.
> > =>
> > =>
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vince Teachout
=>
=> Hal Kaplan wrote:
=> > =>
=> > => And 95% of all statistical claims are made up on the fly.
=> > =>
=> > => Gil
=> > =>
=> > =>
=> >
=> > Actually, I think the number is closer to 95.382%, Gil.
=> Hmmm. You just made that up, did
Hal Kaplan wrote:
> =>
> => And 95% of all statistical claims are made up on the fly.
> =>
> => Gil
> =>
> =>
>
> Actually, I think the number is closer to 95.382%, Gil.
Hmmm. You just made that up, didn't you?
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leaf
=>
=> And 95% of all statistical claims are made up on the fly.
=>
=> Gil
=>
=>
Actually, I think the number is closer to 95.382%, Gil.
B+
HALinNY
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/p
> But the basics of these professions: the chemistry of life, anatomy,
> legal precedent, torts, etc. are independent of commercialism. Intel and
> AMD may be making a lot of bits, but they did not invent them. A
> thorough understanding of algorithmic principles, database, some math,
> reg
uary 18, 2007 3:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Naughty!
>
>
> And yet, still, 90% of lawyers and doctors are only maginally competent
> at best...
>
> As for plumbers and carpenters -- "certification" is not design
I was rather pleased at how quickly and efficiently that "nasty
government bureaucracy", the SSA, got me signed up and money dropping
into my account...
Hal Kaplan wrote:
>=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chet Gardiner
>
>=> Hmmm, are lives at risk from bad BUSINESS programming
>=>
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chet Gardiner
=> Hmmm, are lives at risk from bad BUSINESS programming
=> "practices"? I can see where lives could be at risk from
=> programmers who write process control programs for nucular
=> power plants or automobiles. Interesting question, eh?
You're right. It was the white TRADE unions** who were keeping out
those "others". I was stretching an argument when I didn't have to.
Silly me. :-)
Hmmm, are lives at risk from bad BUSINESS programming "practices"? I
can see where lives could be at risk from programmers who write process
ertify away!!
Cheers;
Hal Kaplan wrote:
>=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chet Gardiner
>=> Subject: Re: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Naughty!
>=>
>=> The real reason is that programming is an art, not a science...
>=>
>=> Can't certify ar
://www.virgilslist.com
http://www.tccutlery.com
http://www.bierschwale.com
http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Hal Kaplan
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:52 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: [NF] Microsoft Caught out
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chet Gardiner
=>
=> And yet, still, 90% of lawyers and doctors are only
=> maginally competent at best...
=>
=> As for plumbers and carpenters -- "certification" is not
=> designed to weed out the incompetent but rather to raise the
=> bar for entry in
=>
=> Hal wrote:
=>
=> "...A thorough understanding of algorithmic principles,
=> database, some math, regression, ETHICS, etc. is what should
=> qualify someone to be a computer professional"
=>
=> TOTALLY WRONG Hal I'm afraid. The thing that qualifies
=> someone to be a computer professiona
=> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chet Gardiner
=> Subject: Re: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Naughty!
=>
=> The real reason is that programming is an art, not a science...
=>
=> Can't certify art...
=>
Chet, you are absolutely right that programming
And yet, still, 90% of lawyers and doctors are only maginally competent
at best...
As for plumbers and carpenters -- "certification" is not designed to
weed out the incompetent but rather to raise the bar for entry into
lucrative professions to the favored few. In many cases, originally, it
w
schwalesolutions.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Chet Gardiner
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:26 AM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Naughty!
The real reason is that programming is an art, not
On 1/18/07, Chet Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The real reason is that programming is an art, not a science...
>
> Can't certify art...
>
Practitioners might argue that good practice of many professions
qualify as art: medicine, law, plumbing, carpentry... basic
proficiency and perhaps bas
On 1/18/07, Dave Crozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> TOTALLY WRONG Hal I'm afraid. The thing that qualifies someone to be a
> computer professional in its true sense (where software is concerned anyhow)
> is the ability to write GOOD software,
That's certainly one opinion. I think there are lik
> computer professionals. Or imagine the converse: that doctors made
> their recommendations not on the best interests of the patient, but
> on what would generate the most revenue for the doctor himself
??
You don't think this is happening already?
Mark Stanton
One small step for mankind...
xperience and natural ability in this business.
>
>Dave Crozier
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
>Of Hal Kaplan
>Sent: 17 January 2007 20:55
>To: ProFox Email List
>Subject: RE: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Na
tand basic methodology" but there is absolutely NO
substitute for experience and natural ability in this business.
Dave Crozier
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Hal Kaplan
Sent: 17 January 2007 20:55
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: [NF]
Ed Leafe <> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
>
>> The saddest thing is "computer professionals" will still continue to
>> use and promote MS. I'll bet this will have little impact on most of
>> the MS-heads out there.
>
> Imagine if there were the equivalent to t
On 1/17/07, Ed Leafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The only way that that would work is if the testing/certification
> body was impartial. Try to find one of those these days.
>
How about A+ or LPI or ICCP? There are a lot of attempts.I believe one
will eventually succeed. Then there'll b
Hal Kaplan wrote:
> A thorough understanding of algorithmic principles, database, some
> math, regression, ETHICS, etc. is what should qualify someone to be a
> computer professional.
>
>
Perhaps that's why most of these "charge 'em as much as you can" bozos
and other non-ethical folks (who
=> And the second problem is that all of the folks in the biz
=> would want to be grandfathered in. Who in their right mind
=> would submit to having to gain credentials (that they may or
=> may not be qualified to earn) to do what they've been doing
=> for the last 10 or 20 years?
=>
=> So,
David Crooks wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:03 PM Ed Leafe wrote:
>
>> The only way that that would work is if the
> testing/certification body was impartial. Try
>> to find one of those these days.
>
> Flash back to when there was a committee to standardize the XBase
> language
On Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:03 PM Ed Leafe wrote:
> The only way that that would work is if the
testing/certification body was impartial. Try
>to find one of those these days.
Flash back to when there was a committee to standardize the XBase
language and each company that produced lik
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:16 PM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
> I too wish they would require some sort of testing of qualifications.
The only way that that would work is if the testing/certification
body was impartial. Try to find one of those these days.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
=> That's because plumbing changes very little, so a standard
=> set of skills and exams can be developed and honed over
=> time. With computing everything changes too quickly for
=> these things to take shape. By the time you have become an
=> NT guru it is out of date. Your MCSD etc. does
Hal Kaplan wrote:
> I know Ed does not like lawyers but I do not know why. It really is a shame
> how 95% of the profession makes things bad for the other 5%.
>
Excellent!
> IMHO, the real problem with computer "professionals" is that they are NOT.
> Unlike other professionals, computer pr
Hal Kaplan wrote:
> I know Ed does not like lawyers but I do not know why. It really is a shame
> how 95% of the profession makes things bad for the other 5%. Personally, I
> think "lawyer" is a pejorative term and I insist that my wife refer to
> herself as an "attorney at law."
>
> Every o
=>
=> Ed Leafe wrote:
=> >The attitude of most computer "professionals" is more
=> akin to that of
=> > lawyers: milk the client for whatever you can simply
=> because you can.
=> >
=>
=> Sad, but true. And that's what taints our professional and
=> gives us the
=> black eye.
=>
=>
Ed Leafe wrote:
> The attitude of most computer "professionals" is more akin to that
> of lawyers: milk the client for whatever you can simply because you can.
>
Sad, but true. And that's what taints our professional and gives us the
black eye.
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
MB Software
On Jan 17, 2007, at 8:25 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
> The saddest thing is "computer professionals" will still continue
> to use
> and promote MS. I'll bet this will have little impact on most of the
> MS-heads out there.
Imagine if there were the equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath for
Ok, now I remember. Obviously, WE would have written the better app!
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Stephen the Cook
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 8:48 PM
To: 'ProFox Email List'
Subject: RE: [NF] Microsoft Caught out
At 11:22 PM 1/16/2007 -0800, Chet Gardiner wrote:
>Very, Very old news. We knew this many, many years ago...
>
>That's one of the reasons the DOJ (under GHWB and Clinton) hauled their
>asses into court only to have gwb let them off the hook...
...
Well, in some ways it is new news to all the MS
Very, Very old news. We knew this many, many years ago...
That's one of the reasons the DOJ (under GHWB and Clinton) hauled their
asses into court only to have gwb let them off the hook...
Dave Crozier wrote:
>"...Microsoft used undocumented APIs that allowed its developers to write
>programs
john harvey <> wrote:
> Nope, I don't remember... what were we trying to do again?
There was talk of which sig could write the better app. We were going to go
first and delete "access" from our app as I remember. :)
Stephen Russell
DBA / .Net Developer
Memphis TN 38115
901.246-0159
"Our scient
Nope, I don't remember... what were we trying to do again?
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of MB Software Solutions
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:54 PM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: [NF] Microsoft Caught out - Naughty, Na
Stephen the Cook wrote:
> Dave Crozier <> wrote:
>
>> "...Microsoft used undocumented APIs that allowed its developers to
>> write programs that worked better with Windows than competitors',
>> according to the latest testimony in the Iowa antitrust action
>> against the company"
>>
>> ".
Dave Crozier <> wrote:
> "...Microsoft used undocumented APIs that allowed its developers to
> write programs that worked better with Windows than competitors',
> according to the latest testimony in the Iowa antitrust action
> against the company"
>
> ".Alepin had earlier claimed that Micr
Ted Roche wrote:
> On 1/16/07, Dave Crozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Naughty Microsoft,
>> As if they would do this sort of thing. It must be spin put out by the
>> opposition .
>>
>>
>
> No, a search for "Windows Undocumented APIs" hardly reveals any
> decades-long patterns at all.
On 1/16/07, Dave Crozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Naughty Microsoft,
> As if they would do this sort of thing. It must be spin put out by the
> opposition .
>
No, a search for "Windows Undocumented APIs" hardly reveals any
decades-long patterns at all...
--
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates,
Dave Crozier wrote:
> "...Microsoft used undocumented APIs that allowed its developers to write
> programs that worked better with Windows than competitors', according to the
> latest testimony in the Iowa antitrust action against the company"
>
> ".Alepin had earlier claimed that Microsoft ran
"...Microsoft used undocumented APIs that allowed its developers to write
programs that worked better with Windows than competitors', according to the
latest testimony in the Iowa antitrust action against the company"
".Alepin had earlier claimed that Microsoft ran special demonstration
progra
45 matches
Mail list logo
