<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_1820214</id>
	<title>Why Coder Pay Isn't  Proportional To Productivity</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261596420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"John D. Cook takes a stab at explaining <a href="http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/12/23/why-programmers-are-not-paid-in-proportion-to-their-productivity">why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity</a>. The basic problem, Cook explains, is that extreme programmer productivity may not be obvious. A salesman who sells 10x as much as his peers will be noticed, and compensated accordingly. And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers, this would be obvious too (it doesn't happen). But the best programmers do not write 10x as many lines of code; nor do they work 10x as many hours. Programmers are most effective when they avoid writing code. An &#252;ber-programmer, Cook explains, is likely to be someone who stares quietly into space and then says 'Hmm. I think I've seen something like this before.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " John D. Cook takes a stab at explaining why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity .
The basic problem , Cook explains , is that extreme programmer productivity may not be obvious .
A salesman who sells 10x as much as his peers will be noticed , and compensated accordingly .
And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers , this would be obvious too ( it does n't happen ) .
But the best programmers do not write 10x as many lines of code ; nor do they work 10x as many hours .
Programmers are most effective when they avoid writing code .
An   ber-programmer , Cook explains , is likely to be someone who stares quietly into space and then says 'Hmm .
I think I 've seen something like this before .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "John D. Cook takes a stab at explaining why programmers are not paid in proportion to their productivity.
The basic problem, Cook explains, is that extreme programmer productivity may not be obvious.
A salesman who sells 10x as much as his peers will be noticed, and compensated accordingly.
And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers, this would be obvious too (it doesn't happen).
But the best programmers do not write 10x as many lines of code; nor do they work 10x as many hours.
Programmers are most effective when they avoid writing code.
An über-programmer, Cook explains, is likely to be someone who stares quietly into space and then says 'Hmm.
I think I've seen something like this before.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259747340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If programming productivity is so hard to measure, then what backs up the claim that some programmers are actually 10x more productive than others?</p><p>Maybe that 10x number is BS and the reality is more like 2.5x, or something closer to the actual salary spread between Junior Developer and Technical Lead.</p><p>
&nbsp; -- 77IM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If programming productivity is so hard to measure , then what backs up the claim that some programmers are actually 10x more productive than others ? Maybe that 10x number is BS and the reality is more like 2.5x , or something closer to the actual salary spread between Junior Developer and Technical Lead .
  -- 77IM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If programming productivity is so hard to measure, then what backs up the claim that some programmers are actually 10x more productive than others?Maybe that 10x number is BS and the reality is more like 2.5x, or something closer to the actual salary spread between Junior Developer and Technical Lead.
  -- 77IM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538500</id>
	<title>Re:What about the slow workers</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1259746020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious too</p></div><p>And he'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad.</p></div><p>Sounds like <a href="http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858660636/" title="songmeanings.net">Indestructible Sam</a> [songmeanings.net].</p><p> <i>Miles around competition burned with the deepest rage<br>
The work was hard and Sam did it for the cheapest wage<br>
Seemed that the other man's shoes didn't fit him<br>
When he was out working the others were out to get him</i> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious tooAnd he 'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad.Sounds like Indestructible Sam [ songmeanings.net ] .
Miles around competition burned with the deepest rage The work was hard and Sam did it for the cheapest wage Seemed that the other man 's shoes did n't fit him When he was out working the others were out to get him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious tooAnd he'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad.Sounds like Indestructible Sam [songmeanings.net].
Miles around competition burned with the deepest rage
The work was hard and Sam did it for the cheapest wage
Seemed that the other man's shoes didn't fit him
When he was out working the others were out to get him 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541140</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1259766120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Software that's <i>finished</i> in finite time? (Forever-finished, not just this-release-finished.)

What a concept! Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there?</p></div><p>My job is writing programs that are often only ever used once, to translate (half-garbage) data from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third\_party\_administrator" title="wikipedia.org">competitors'</a> [wikipedia.org] or customers' database structures to our own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software that 's finished in finite time ?
( Forever-finished , not just this-release-finished .
) What a concept !
Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there ? My job is writing programs that are often only ever used once , to translate ( half-garbage ) data from competitors ' [ wikipedia.org ] or customers ' database structures to our own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Software that's finished in finite time?
(Forever-finished, not just this-release-finished.
)

What a concept!
Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there?My job is writing programs that are often only ever used once, to translate (half-garbage) data from competitors' [wikipedia.org] or customers' database structures to our own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538196</id>
	<title>Hire a lazy person</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1259787300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I tell my team all the time - "if you're finding it's hard to do, you're probably doing it wrong."   Cargo-cult chimps are a dime a dozen, they beat out code all day long that kind of works and mostly sucks.  The good programmer DOES sit there, stare into space, and comes up with a 5-line function to do the same work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I tell my team all the time - " if you 're finding it 's hard to do , you 're probably doing it wrong .
" Cargo-cult chimps are a dime a dozen , they beat out code all day long that kind of works and mostly sucks .
The good programmer DOES sit there , stare into space , and comes up with a 5-line function to do the same work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I tell my team all the time - "if you're finding it's hard to do, you're probably doing it wrong.
"   Cargo-cult chimps are a dime a dozen, they beat out code all day long that kind of works and mostly sucks.
The good programmer DOES sit there, stare into space, and comes up with a 5-line function to do the same work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538786</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coders need salespeople and salespeople need coders - period.  Its just the bosses and ownership that get in the way.</p><p>I disagree with the author that when the product is completed, mostly likely the developers will be let go since no more work needs done.    I have yet to see any product which has code that supports itself and until I do, then I'll gladly agree with the author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coders need salespeople and salespeople need coders - period .
Its just the bosses and ownership that get in the way.I disagree with the author that when the product is completed , mostly likely the developers will be let go since no more work needs done .
I have yet to see any product which has code that supports itself and until I do , then I 'll gladly agree with the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coders need salespeople and salespeople need coders - period.
Its just the bosses and ownership that get in the way.I disagree with the author that when the product is completed, mostly likely the developers will be let go since no more work needs done.
I have yet to see any product which has code that supports itself and until I do, then I'll gladly agree with the author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539236</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>Mr\_Tulip</author>
	<datestamp>1259750820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you only have a single task to do, and weeks to do it, then you are 1) not being very prducttive, and 2) selling yourself short. <br>

In every job I've had, I have always worked simultaneously on several projects, along with having to deal with client issues, documentation, R&amp;D for the next version, meetings etc.
You just need to throw yourself at more tasks, until you reach a level where you don't find yourself procrastinating for more than a few minutes at a time.<p>

This is how I develop, and it works very well. My peers and managers are happy, because I am productive. I am happy because I don't feel like I'm procrastinating for long periods. Too much 'sitting on your hands' is boring, it makes the days drag on, and is not really helping you write good code. For me, that is what job satisfaction is all about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you only have a single task to do , and weeks to do it , then you are 1 ) not being very prducttive , and 2 ) selling yourself short .
In every job I 've had , I have always worked simultaneously on several projects , along with having to deal with client issues , documentation , R&amp;D for the next version , meetings etc .
You just need to throw yourself at more tasks , until you reach a level where you do n't find yourself procrastinating for more than a few minutes at a time .
This is how I develop , and it works very well .
My peers and managers are happy , because I am productive .
I am happy because I do n't feel like I 'm procrastinating for long periods .
Too much 'sitting on your hands ' is boring , it makes the days drag on , and is not really helping you write good code .
For me , that is what job satisfaction is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you only have a single task to do, and weeks to do it, then you are 1) not being very prducttive, and 2) selling yourself short.
In every job I've had, I have always worked simultaneously on several projects, along with having to deal with client issues, documentation, R&amp;D for the next version, meetings etc.
You just need to throw yourself at more tasks, until you reach a level where you don't find yourself procrastinating for more than a few minutes at a time.
This is how I develop, and it works very well.
My peers and managers are happy, because I am productive.
I am happy because I don't feel like I'm procrastinating for long periods.
Too much 'sitting on your hands' is boring, it makes the days drag on, and is not really helping you write good code.
For me, that is what job satisfaction is all about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538456</id>
	<title>Its also ego-saving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I expect 99\% of the programmers who read this article consider themselves to be in the unnoticed uber-programmer category.</p><p>And probably more like 5\% of them actually qualify.</p><p>I, of course, am in that 5\%.  But you probably aren't.  Because you aren't me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect 99 \ % of the programmers who read this article consider themselves to be in the unnoticed uber-programmer category.And probably more like 5 \ % of them actually qualify.I , of course , am in that 5 \ % .
But you probably are n't .
Because you are n't me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect 99\% of the programmers who read this article consider themselves to be in the unnoticed uber-programmer category.And probably more like 5\% of them actually qualify.I, of course, am in that 5\%.
But you probably aren't.
Because you aren't me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538538</id>
	<title>IQ</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1259746320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the lack of a better metric, the developer with higher IQ should earn more. Programming is a highly g-loaded job, so I would rather maintain a 10 year-old code of someone with IQ 125 than of IQ 105. Anyways from what i've heard, the hiring tests they give at Microsoft or Google are basically IQ tests.
<br>
<br>
Probably we should even devise an IQ-based project metric. Something like a "this projet is  1000 IQ-months." Since this does not exclude employing a 100 monkeys for a month, maybe it is better to express it in terms of standard deviations, or IQ above 100, or something like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the lack of a better metric , the developer with higher IQ should earn more .
Programming is a highly g-loaded job , so I would rather maintain a 10 year-old code of someone with IQ 125 than of IQ 105 .
Anyways from what i 've heard , the hiring tests they give at Microsoft or Google are basically IQ tests .
Probably we should even devise an IQ-based project metric .
Something like a " this projet is 1000 IQ-months .
" Since this does not exclude employing a 100 monkeys for a month , maybe it is better to express it in terms of standard deviations , or IQ above 100 , or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the lack of a better metric, the developer with higher IQ should earn more.
Programming is a highly g-loaded job, so I would rather maintain a 10 year-old code of someone with IQ 125 than of IQ 105.
Anyways from what i've heard, the hiring tests they give at Microsoft or Google are basically IQ tests.
Probably we should even devise an IQ-based project metric.
Something like a "this projet is  1000 IQ-months.
" Since this does not exclude employing a 100 monkeys for a month, maybe it is better to express it in terms of standard deviations, or IQ above 100, or something like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541256</id>
	<title>greatest skill is making excuses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259767860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see from the comments that the one thing coders are really really good at is making excuses for being unproductive, incompetent, and unpleasant. Count your blessings you even get paid. For anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see from the comments that the one thing coders are really really good at is making excuses for being unproductive , incompetent , and unpleasant .
Count your blessings you even get paid .
For anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see from the comments that the one thing coders are really really good at is making excuses for being unproductive, incompetent, and unpleasant.
Count your blessings you even get paid.
For anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539742</id>
	<title>Re:Another contributor to productivity invisibilit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The uber-coder's code works the first time - it sits there silently and invisibly working.</p><p>Meanwhile, everyone is looking at the hard work and long hours being put in by the guy who's code needs lots of help.  He gets the notice, not the guy who did it right.</p></div><p>As a developer ( I don't think we have enough of an development group to really qualify for low level programmer positions) I can most definately say that when you pull something off that works, and works well, for years with little maintenance, it definately gets recognized.</p><p>Over the course of my full-on Software career that started say 5-6 years ago, I have definately gotten alot better at debugging and avoiding pitfalls. To have a pair of developers work on something for 1 month and have it run smoothly for the next year or two and save time in the organization daily, you DEFINATELY notice when it runs without any major hiccups. It isnt always that way. Minor hiccups are OK, but I think the most problematic is when there is an identified issue and it can't be quickly solved. If a bug turns up a year later, and you can fix it in half an hour on your system, you are doing ok as far as I can tell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The uber-coder 's code works the first time - it sits there silently and invisibly working.Meanwhile , everyone is looking at the hard work and long hours being put in by the guy who 's code needs lots of help .
He gets the notice , not the guy who did it right.As a developer ( I do n't think we have enough of an development group to really qualify for low level programmer positions ) I can most definately say that when you pull something off that works , and works well , for years with little maintenance , it definately gets recognized.Over the course of my full-on Software career that started say 5-6 years ago , I have definately gotten alot better at debugging and avoiding pitfalls .
To have a pair of developers work on something for 1 month and have it run smoothly for the next year or two and save time in the organization daily , you DEFINATELY notice when it runs without any major hiccups .
It isnt always that way .
Minor hiccups are OK , but I think the most problematic is when there is an identified issue and it ca n't be quickly solved .
If a bug turns up a year later , and you can fix it in half an hour on your system , you are doing ok as far as I can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The uber-coder's code works the first time - it sits there silently and invisibly working.Meanwhile, everyone is looking at the hard work and long hours being put in by the guy who's code needs lots of help.
He gets the notice, not the guy who did it right.As a developer ( I don't think we have enough of an development group to really qualify for low level programmer positions) I can most definately say that when you pull something off that works, and works well, for years with little maintenance, it definately gets recognized.Over the course of my full-on Software career that started say 5-6 years ago, I have definately gotten alot better at debugging and avoiding pitfalls.
To have a pair of developers work on something for 1 month and have it run smoothly for the next year or two and save time in the organization daily, you DEFINATELY notice when it runs without any major hiccups.
It isnt always that way.
Minor hiccups are OK, but I think the most problematic is when there is an identified issue and it can't be quickly solved.
If a bug turns up a year later, and you can fix it in half an hour on your system, you are doing ok as far as I can tell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538624</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found that quote particularly bizarre. Firstly, "staring quietly into space" - as opposed to staring noisily into space? I've never known staring to make any noise. Secondly, "I've seen this before" - well of course you have, you seem to spend a lot of time staring into space. Do you think perhaps it is <em>space</em> you are seeing?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found that quote particularly bizarre .
Firstly , " staring quietly into space " - as opposed to staring noisily into space ?
I 've never known staring to make any noise .
Secondly , " I 've seen this before " - well of course you have , you seem to spend a lot of time staring into space .
Do you think perhaps it is space you are seeing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found that quote particularly bizarre.
Firstly, "staring quietly into space" - as opposed to staring noisily into space?
I've never known staring to make any noise.
Secondly, "I've seen this before" - well of course you have, you seem to spend a lot of time staring into space.
Do you think perhaps it is space you are seeing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541682</id>
	<title>-2000 lines of code</title>
	<author>owenc67202</author>
	<datestamp>1259773500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of one of my Bill Atkinson stories:<p>

<a href="http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&amp;story=Negative\_2000\_Lines\_Of\_Code.txt&amp;topic=Software\%20Design&amp;sortOrder=Sort\%20by\%20Date&amp;detail=medium" title="folklore.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&amp;story=Negative\_2000\_Lines\_Of\_Code.txt&amp;topic=Software\%20Design&amp;sortOrder=Sort\%20by\%20Date&amp;detail=medium</a> [folklore.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of one of my Bill Atkinson stories : http : //www.folklore.org/StoryView.py ? project = Macintosh&amp;story = Negative \ _2000 \ _Lines \ _Of \ _Code.txt&amp;topic = Software \ % 20Design&amp;sortOrder = Sort \ % 20by \ % 20Date&amp;detail = medium [ folklore.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of one of my Bill Atkinson stories:

http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&amp;story=Negative\_2000\_Lines\_Of\_Code.txt&amp;topic=Software\%20Design&amp;sortOrder=Sort\%20by\%20Date&amp;detail=medium [folklore.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542912</id>
	<title>My favorite programmer metric</title>
	<author>Aging\_Newbie</author>
	<datestamp>1261655760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite programmer metric is deceptively simple.  Called "Delivered Testable Requirements" it simply counts the testable requirements delivered in the module, modification, etc.  Of course, the "deceptively" part is that two things are typically missing from software development<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... One is formal testing and the other is requirements so, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily\_Litella" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Never Mind!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite programmer metric is deceptively simple .
Called " Delivered Testable Requirements " it simply counts the testable requirements delivered in the module , modification , etc .
Of course , the " deceptively " part is that two things are typically missing from software development ... One is formal testing and the other is requirements so , Never Mind !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite programmer metric is deceptively simple.
Called "Delivered Testable Requirements" it simply counts the testable requirements delivered in the module, modification, etc.
Of course, the "deceptively" part is that two things are typically missing from software development ... One is formal testing and the other is requirements so, Never Mind!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541084</id>
	<title>Re:Value, labor and the fallacy of mixing the two</title>
	<author>Kumiorava</author>
	<datestamp>1259765700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe I'm repeating what you were trying to say, but here is then same thing with slightly different words.</p><p>Employee in general isn't concerned how much "profit" employer gets from employees work. It is employers responsibility to manage the employees and pick employees with right skills at right "price". Employees on the other hand are in a free market selling their work to other employers if they get better "price" for their work.</p><p>Naturally the mechanisms of job market are not this straight forward, but if we follow The Austrian School of Economics we should forget the relation beween the "value" employees produce and "price" employees get for their work. It's all about supply and demand. To tie this back to the article we could say that if nobody is willing to pay 10x more for 10x more producing employee then that employee has to settle for smaller multiplier or not work at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe I 'm repeating what you were trying to say , but here is then same thing with slightly different words.Employee in general is n't concerned how much " profit " employer gets from employees work .
It is employers responsibility to manage the employees and pick employees with right skills at right " price " .
Employees on the other hand are in a free market selling their work to other employers if they get better " price " for their work.Naturally the mechanisms of job market are not this straight forward , but if we follow The Austrian School of Economics we should forget the relation beween the " value " employees produce and " price " employees get for their work .
It 's all about supply and demand .
To tie this back to the article we could say that if nobody is willing to pay 10x more for 10x more producing employee then that employee has to settle for smaller multiplier or not work at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe I'm repeating what you were trying to say, but here is then same thing with slightly different words.Employee in general isn't concerned how much "profit" employer gets from employees work.
It is employers responsibility to manage the employees and pick employees with right skills at right "price".
Employees on the other hand are in a free market selling their work to other employers if they get better "price" for their work.Naturally the mechanisms of job market are not this straight forward, but if we follow The Austrian School of Economics we should forget the relation beween the "value" employees produce and "price" employees get for their work.
It's all about supply and demand.
To tie this back to the article we could say that if nobody is willing to pay 10x more for 10x more producing employee then that employee has to settle for smaller multiplier or not work at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538896</id>
	<title>One reason...</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1259748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most managers just arn't going to assign one (uber) programmer 10x the workload of another, so the company doesn't get the benefit. What happens in practice is that the uber programmer is under-utilized and therefore benefits from his uber-ness not in terms of pay comessurate with what he can do but in terms of spare time comessurate with assignment completion times for what he was asked to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most managers just ar n't going to assign one ( uber ) programmer 10x the workload of another , so the company does n't get the benefit .
What happens in practice is that the uber programmer is under-utilized and therefore benefits from his uber-ness not in terms of pay comessurate with what he can do but in terms of spare time comessurate with assignment completion times for what he was asked to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most managers just arn't going to assign one (uber) programmer 10x the workload of another, so the company doesn't get the benefit.
What happens in practice is that the uber programmer is under-utilized and therefore benefits from his uber-ness not in terms of pay comessurate with what he can do but in terms of spare time comessurate with assignment completion times for what he was asked to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538714</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am usually sent into jobs to do whatever my employers can't find experts in, at which point I become the expert. The result of my work is that I get about two months of good solid coding. After that I end up writing the tests for testers that don't understand how to test in that field or with that software, writing specifications or user stories for the software engineers and project managers that don't understand the field or software and evangalizing the particular thing I was sent to learn to the customers. If I am really, really good I might be allowed to write code for an hour a day.</p><p>About eight months in a manager higher up usually notices that my productivity was really high and has been steadily dropping. At this time if the manager doesn't check with the client I am on the way out. (And then the project suffers greatly as the client starts asking uncomfortable questions about why no one seems to understand how the part I was an expert in works). On the other hand, if the manager asks the clients about me I end up doing even less coding, as management sees that they have a programmer that can actually talk to the client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am usually sent into jobs to do whatever my employers ca n't find experts in , at which point I become the expert .
The result of my work is that I get about two months of good solid coding .
After that I end up writing the tests for testers that do n't understand how to test in that field or with that software , writing specifications or user stories for the software engineers and project managers that do n't understand the field or software and evangalizing the particular thing I was sent to learn to the customers .
If I am really , really good I might be allowed to write code for an hour a day.About eight months in a manager higher up usually notices that my productivity was really high and has been steadily dropping .
At this time if the manager does n't check with the client I am on the way out .
( And then the project suffers greatly as the client starts asking uncomfortable questions about why no one seems to understand how the part I was an expert in works ) .
On the other hand , if the manager asks the clients about me I end up doing even less coding , as management sees that they have a programmer that can actually talk to the client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am usually sent into jobs to do whatever my employers can't find experts in, at which point I become the expert.
The result of my work is that I get about two months of good solid coding.
After that I end up writing the tests for testers that don't understand how to test in that field or with that software, writing specifications or user stories for the software engineers and project managers that don't understand the field or software and evangalizing the particular thing I was sent to learn to the customers.
If I am really, really good I might be allowed to write code for an hour a day.About eight months in a manager higher up usually notices that my productivity was really high and has been steadily dropping.
At this time if the manager doesn't check with the client I am on the way out.
(And then the project suffers greatly as the client starts asking uncomfortable questions about why no one seems to understand how the part I was an expert in works).
On the other hand, if the manager asks the clients about me I end up doing even less coding, as management sees that they have a programmer that can actually talk to the client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539178</id>
	<title>It depends on where you work</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1259750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that where I work, most of my best work is done behind the scenes.  I get it done, tell my boss that I want to be the one to demo it to the client since it is awesome, but it ends up being an engineer and my boss demo'ing it.
<br> <br>
I am currently an programmer analyst.
<br> <br>
I somehow landed on the team of pretty much all really good programmers.
<br> <br>
Now, the pay is not the best, but I do know that every 6 months, we have a review and are actually given numbers based on our performance.  Now, the performance does not have to do with time barriers (unless we constantly do not hit the deadlines), but on aspects like how independent we are (i.e. we get a project and not sitting in our team mates cube the entire time asking them about it), team work (i.e. we all do our part that is given), and normal factors such as showing up to work on time and stuff like that.
<br> <br>
I agree that with many programmers today, it is very difficult to get as noticed as some of the old school programmers since alot of code that is truly worthy of being called a breakthrough has been done already, and many of us, like myself, simply program on top of that breakthrough.
<br> <br>
I personally think that an uber programmer can do a couple things: <br>
1.) be given specs and know exactly how to do them.  Maybe not right away, but they will be able to do it.  I do it every once in awhile, and I know that some of you probably do as well.  We will sit there just thinking and getting everything in place in our heads not touching the keyboard, and then everything will just click and we will go nuts<br>
2.) Constantly learning.  Some people will just refuse to quit learning, and it will show.  We will be working, and then they will learn about something new, try it out, and then tell everybody else about it.<br>
3.) Is the first person to show everybody their code.  I work with a couple dudes who do this.  The dudes are seriously brilliant.  They will get done with a chunk of code, and want to share it with everybody.  On the other side, there is one guy who will do a chunk of code and compile it, then share it so that only that person ever knows what is in that code.  I just think if you an uber programmer knows they wrote something amazing, they will want, at the very least, people on their team to see it.<br>
4.) Solve problems in other people's code extremely easily.  Again, this goes back to this guy I work with.  Regardless of the issue with a script kiddies code or just a programmers code, this person will look at it, think about a little bit, and then just solve it.<br> <br>
Of course, these are just my opinions dudes.  If you think I am incorrect, I already know you will say something, I just figured I would throw this out there</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that where I work , most of my best work is done behind the scenes .
I get it done , tell my boss that I want to be the one to demo it to the client since it is awesome , but it ends up being an engineer and my boss demo'ing it .
I am currently an programmer analyst .
I somehow landed on the team of pretty much all really good programmers .
Now , the pay is not the best , but I do know that every 6 months , we have a review and are actually given numbers based on our performance .
Now , the performance does not have to do with time barriers ( unless we constantly do not hit the deadlines ) , but on aspects like how independent we are ( i.e .
we get a project and not sitting in our team mates cube the entire time asking them about it ) , team work ( i.e .
we all do our part that is given ) , and normal factors such as showing up to work on time and stuff like that .
I agree that with many programmers today , it is very difficult to get as noticed as some of the old school programmers since alot of code that is truly worthy of being called a breakthrough has been done already , and many of us , like myself , simply program on top of that breakthrough .
I personally think that an uber programmer can do a couple things : 1 .
) be given specs and know exactly how to do them .
Maybe not right away , but they will be able to do it .
I do it every once in awhile , and I know that some of you probably do as well .
We will sit there just thinking and getting everything in place in our heads not touching the keyboard , and then everything will just click and we will go nuts 2 .
) Constantly learning .
Some people will just refuse to quit learning , and it will show .
We will be working , and then they will learn about something new , try it out , and then tell everybody else about it .
3. ) Is the first person to show everybody their code .
I work with a couple dudes who do this .
The dudes are seriously brilliant .
They will get done with a chunk of code , and want to share it with everybody .
On the other side , there is one guy who will do a chunk of code and compile it , then share it so that only that person ever knows what is in that code .
I just think if you an uber programmer knows they wrote something amazing , they will want , at the very least , people on their team to see it .
4. ) Solve problems in other people 's code extremely easily .
Again , this goes back to this guy I work with .
Regardless of the issue with a script kiddies code or just a programmers code , this person will look at it , think about a little bit , and then just solve it .
Of course , these are just my opinions dudes .
If you think I am incorrect , I already know you will say something , I just figured I would throw this out there</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that where I work, most of my best work is done behind the scenes.
I get it done, tell my boss that I want to be the one to demo it to the client since it is awesome, but it ends up being an engineer and my boss demo'ing it.
I am currently an programmer analyst.
I somehow landed on the team of pretty much all really good programmers.
Now, the pay is not the best, but I do know that every 6 months, we have a review and are actually given numbers based on our performance.
Now, the performance does not have to do with time barriers (unless we constantly do not hit the deadlines), but on aspects like how independent we are (i.e.
we get a project and not sitting in our team mates cube the entire time asking them about it), team work (i.e.
we all do our part that is given), and normal factors such as showing up to work on time and stuff like that.
I agree that with many programmers today, it is very difficult to get as noticed as some of the old school programmers since alot of code that is truly worthy of being called a breakthrough has been done already, and many of us, like myself, simply program on top of that breakthrough.
I personally think that an uber programmer can do a couple things: 
1.
) be given specs and know exactly how to do them.
Maybe not right away, but they will be able to do it.
I do it every once in awhile, and I know that some of you probably do as well.
We will sit there just thinking and getting everything in place in our heads not touching the keyboard, and then everything will just click and we will go nuts
2.
) Constantly learning.
Some people will just refuse to quit learning, and it will show.
We will be working, and then they will learn about something new, try it out, and then tell everybody else about it.
3.) Is the first person to show everybody their code.
I work with a couple dudes who do this.
The dudes are seriously brilliant.
They will get done with a chunk of code, and want to share it with everybody.
On the other side, there is one guy who will do a chunk of code and compile it, then share it so that only that person ever knows what is in that code.
I just think if you an uber programmer knows they wrote something amazing, they will want, at the very least, people on their team to see it.
4.) Solve problems in other people's code extremely easily.
Again, this goes back to this guy I work with.
Regardless of the issue with a script kiddies code or just a programmers code, this person will look at it, think about a little bit, and then just solve it.
Of course, these are just my opinions dudes.
If you think I am incorrect, I already know you will say something, I just figured I would throw this out there</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539108</id>
	<title>Re:IQ</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259749860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For the lack of a better metric, the developer with higher IQ should earn more. Programming is a highly g-loaded job, so I would rather maintain a 10 year-old code of someone with IQ 125 than of IQ 105.</p></div><p>What if the guy with IQ 125 is slacking off more (e.g. because he can devise better ways to fool you)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the lack of a better metric , the developer with higher IQ should earn more .
Programming is a highly g-loaded job , so I would rather maintain a 10 year-old code of someone with IQ 125 than of IQ 105.What if the guy with IQ 125 is slacking off more ( e.g .
because he can devise better ways to fool you ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the lack of a better metric, the developer with higher IQ should earn more.
Programming is a highly g-loaded job, so I would rather maintain a 10 year-old code of someone with IQ 125 than of IQ 105.What if the guy with IQ 125 is slacking off more (e.g.
because he can devise better ways to fool you)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538384</id>
	<title>Re:I don't even think it's that well-defined.</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1259745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if you've ever read any of the Flow or finding Flow books, but there is a premise that people work at their best when they have;</p><p>A simple well defined problem</p><p>Theorhetically then a good Programmer or Dev Lead is one that can narrow his/his team's focus and get working at their best on one issue at a time. Simultaneously they need to have their eye on the big picture and ensure that none of the simple, even elegant solutions still works with all the other parts it needs to. Maybe he does this with good design or good requirements.</p><p>Since Lines of Code, or time spent in the office can be gamed and are meaningless as metrics, then how about trying to measure Quality, fitness for purpose, do the customers like it? Can we measure problems/bugs each programmer generates? Can we measure the level of support calls, and customer goodwill lost due to rotten code?</p><p>Productivity isn't just getting crappy alpha to crappy beta to crappy shipped on time, or even the mediocre 'we fixed the worst stuff' (that we knew about) before it shipped.</p><p>I liked your stuff about the intangibles too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you 've ever read any of the Flow or finding Flow books , but there is a premise that people work at their best when they have ; A simple well defined problemTheorhetically then a good Programmer or Dev Lead is one that can narrow his/his team 's focus and get working at their best on one issue at a time .
Simultaneously they need to have their eye on the big picture and ensure that none of the simple , even elegant solutions still works with all the other parts it needs to .
Maybe he does this with good design or good requirements.Since Lines of Code , or time spent in the office can be gamed and are meaningless as metrics , then how about trying to measure Quality , fitness for purpose , do the customers like it ?
Can we measure problems/bugs each programmer generates ?
Can we measure the level of support calls , and customer goodwill lost due to rotten code ? Productivity is n't just getting crappy alpha to crappy beta to crappy shipped on time , or even the mediocre 'we fixed the worst stuff ' ( that we knew about ) before it shipped.I liked your stuff about the intangibles too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you've ever read any of the Flow or finding Flow books, but there is a premise that people work at their best when they have;A simple well defined problemTheorhetically then a good Programmer or Dev Lead is one that can narrow his/his team's focus and get working at their best on one issue at a time.
Simultaneously they need to have their eye on the big picture and ensure that none of the simple, even elegant solutions still works with all the other parts it needs to.
Maybe he does this with good design or good requirements.Since Lines of Code, or time spent in the office can be gamed and are meaningless as metrics, then how about trying to measure Quality, fitness for purpose, do the customers like it?
Can we measure problems/bugs each programmer generates?
Can we measure the level of support calls, and customer goodwill lost due to rotten code?Productivity isn't just getting crappy alpha to crappy beta to crappy shipped on time, or even the mediocre 'we fixed the worst stuff' (that we knew about) before it shipped.I liked your stuff about the intangibles too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539488</id>
	<title>Not unusual</title>
	<author>jbmartin6</author>
	<datestamp>1259752800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>people get paid in proportion to how difficult management perceives replacing them is. In this, coding is no different than most other jobs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>people get paid in proportion to how difficult management perceives replacing them is .
In this , coding is no different than most other jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people get paid in proportion to how difficult management perceives replacing them is.
In this, coding is no different than most other jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538404</id>
	<title>Measurement metrics</title>
	<author>arjan\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1259745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is indeed somewhat of a problem in our profession. It's in general hard to find good metrics that quantify the performance of a programmer. Lines of code, number of closed tickets, or years of experience are all sometimes used but even though these might be indicative of performance, they all don't necessarily have to mean much.</p><p>
Lines of code has been discussed quite often over the years, but it's typically not seen as a good indicator. People may use a lot of white space, or write a bunch a spaghetti code based on blindly copy-pasting stuff around. This blind copy pasting will result in extremely bad code that's often impossible to maintain. A better performing developer may actually refactor all this duplicate code and abstract it into some common class or method, in which case the LOC produced by said developer may actually be negative! Worse yet, people may check in stuff like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dia files to their source code repository, which might boost your supposed LOC productivity with thousands of lines, while all you did was draw a box with an arrow pointing to it.</p><p>
On the other hand, LOC also doesn't mean nothing. I've seen developers reading slashdot all day instead of coding and as a result their daily, monthly and even yearly LOC count was extremely low. We use among others statsvn <a href="http://www.statsvn.org/" title="statsvn.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.statsvn.org/</a> [statsvn.org] and though not perfect it does give a very crude indication of who's very active and who's basically doing nothing all day long.</p><p>
Number of closed tickets is an indicator too, but just as with lines of code hard to really use for measuring some one's performance. Tickets (issues/bugs) can vary wildly in complexity and the "estimated amount of hours" and "impact" is hardly ever accurate. Given two bugs, one can be as simple as adding a forgotten quote somewhere, while the other can amount to weeks of digging through the lowest levels of some code base. Yet, on average, if tickets are assigned to developers without really taking into account their abilities, then over a longer period of time all developers should on average get an equal amount of quick&amp;easy and hard tickets. In that case, the number of closed tickets might be indicative again. Someone who barely ever closes a ticket might not be that top performer, despite the inaccuracy of the ticket measurement.</p><p>
Years of experience, which is I think used the most, is maybe also the most debatable of them all. It's a very natural measurement tool which takes no personal stuff into account. It's a very basic and easy to measure number. But here too, it can be deceiving. I've seen programmers who had some 8 years of Java experience, but appeared to be totally unable to pass a basic Java test and produced nothing but WTFs in their code like concatenating strings to each other with commas in between instead of storing them into a list, simply because they didn't grasp how a simple list actually worked! (I kid you not, I actually encountered this). In contrast with this, there's the guy (or gal) taking up some part-time job while still studying, who understands even complex stuff in the blink of an eye and produce nothing but exemplary code. But here too, given a group of all reasonable knowledgeable programmers, the ones with the most experience typically win out. When I look at my own code that I produced 10 years ago and compare it with what I produce now, I most definitely see a vast improvement.</p><p>
Even though management might often have difficulties with measuring the performance of a programmer, there is one group of people who are true <b>experts</b> here: the team mates of said programmer; his or her fellow programmers! If you have worked in a team for some time, everybody knows who's the ace, who's the simply capable one and who is obviously trailing behind. As a programmer you actually work with the code of that other programmer. You are either able to extend that code with the greatest ease because of the elegant design and clear names being used, or you curse every minute that you have to spent in that code. As a programmer, you actually know whether the answer you get from that other programmer actually makes sense. If he or she answers your every question with a "yeah, well, uhm, it's not supposed to do that, but sometimes it happens anyway. I have no idea why, must be a strange VM error", they you simply *know* that person is subpar. On the other hand, if you almost always get an answer detailing you the exact location of some occurrence and a short but concise explanation under which condition something happens and why, you *know* this person is ace<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is indeed somewhat of a problem in our profession .
It 's in general hard to find good metrics that quantify the performance of a programmer .
Lines of code , number of closed tickets , or years of experience are all sometimes used but even though these might be indicative of performance , they all do n't necessarily have to mean much .
Lines of code has been discussed quite often over the years , but it 's typically not seen as a good indicator .
People may use a lot of white space , or write a bunch a spaghetti code based on blindly copy-pasting stuff around .
This blind copy pasting will result in extremely bad code that 's often impossible to maintain .
A better performing developer may actually refactor all this duplicate code and abstract it into some common class or method , in which case the LOC produced by said developer may actually be negative !
Worse yet , people may check in stuff like .dia files to their source code repository , which might boost your supposed LOC productivity with thousands of lines , while all you did was draw a box with an arrow pointing to it .
On the other hand , LOC also does n't mean nothing .
I 've seen developers reading slashdot all day instead of coding and as a result their daily , monthly and even yearly LOC count was extremely low .
We use among others statsvn http : //www.statsvn.org/ [ statsvn.org ] and though not perfect it does give a very crude indication of who 's very active and who 's basically doing nothing all day long .
Number of closed tickets is an indicator too , but just as with lines of code hard to really use for measuring some one 's performance .
Tickets ( issues/bugs ) can vary wildly in complexity and the " estimated amount of hours " and " impact " is hardly ever accurate .
Given two bugs , one can be as simple as adding a forgotten quote somewhere , while the other can amount to weeks of digging through the lowest levels of some code base .
Yet , on average , if tickets are assigned to developers without really taking into account their abilities , then over a longer period of time all developers should on average get an equal amount of quick&amp;easy and hard tickets .
In that case , the number of closed tickets might be indicative again .
Someone who barely ever closes a ticket might not be that top performer , despite the inaccuracy of the ticket measurement .
Years of experience , which is I think used the most , is maybe also the most debatable of them all .
It 's a very natural measurement tool which takes no personal stuff into account .
It 's a very basic and easy to measure number .
But here too , it can be deceiving .
I 've seen programmers who had some 8 years of Java experience , but appeared to be totally unable to pass a basic Java test and produced nothing but WTFs in their code like concatenating strings to each other with commas in between instead of storing them into a list , simply because they did n't grasp how a simple list actually worked !
( I kid you not , I actually encountered this ) .
In contrast with this , there 's the guy ( or gal ) taking up some part-time job while still studying , who understands even complex stuff in the blink of an eye and produce nothing but exemplary code .
But here too , given a group of all reasonable knowledgeable programmers , the ones with the most experience typically win out .
When I look at my own code that I produced 10 years ago and compare it with what I produce now , I most definitely see a vast improvement .
Even though management might often have difficulties with measuring the performance of a programmer , there is one group of people who are true experts here : the team mates of said programmer ; his or her fellow programmers !
If you have worked in a team for some time , everybody knows who 's the ace , who 's the simply capable one and who is obviously trailing behind .
As a programmer you actually work with the code of that other programmer .
You are either able to extend that code with the greatest ease because of the elegant design and clear names being used , or you curse every minute that you have to spent in that code .
As a programmer , you actually know whether the answer you get from that other programmer actually makes sense .
If he or she answers your every question with a " yeah , well , uhm , it 's not supposed to do that , but sometimes it happens anyway .
I have no idea why , must be a strange VM error " , they you simply * know * that person is subpar .
On the other hand , if you almost always get an answer detailing you the exact location of some occurrence and a short but concise explanation under which condition something happens and why , you * know * this person is ace ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is indeed somewhat of a problem in our profession.
It's in general hard to find good metrics that quantify the performance of a programmer.
Lines of code, number of closed tickets, or years of experience are all sometimes used but even though these might be indicative of performance, they all don't necessarily have to mean much.
Lines of code has been discussed quite often over the years, but it's typically not seen as a good indicator.
People may use a lot of white space, or write a bunch a spaghetti code based on blindly copy-pasting stuff around.
This blind copy pasting will result in extremely bad code that's often impossible to maintain.
A better performing developer may actually refactor all this duplicate code and abstract it into some common class or method, in which case the LOC produced by said developer may actually be negative!
Worse yet, people may check in stuff like .dia files to their source code repository, which might boost your supposed LOC productivity with thousands of lines, while all you did was draw a box with an arrow pointing to it.
On the other hand, LOC also doesn't mean nothing.
I've seen developers reading slashdot all day instead of coding and as a result their daily, monthly and even yearly LOC count was extremely low.
We use among others statsvn http://www.statsvn.org/ [statsvn.org] and though not perfect it does give a very crude indication of who's very active and who's basically doing nothing all day long.
Number of closed tickets is an indicator too, but just as with lines of code hard to really use for measuring some one's performance.
Tickets (issues/bugs) can vary wildly in complexity and the "estimated amount of hours" and "impact" is hardly ever accurate.
Given two bugs, one can be as simple as adding a forgotten quote somewhere, while the other can amount to weeks of digging through the lowest levels of some code base.
Yet, on average, if tickets are assigned to developers without really taking into account their abilities, then over a longer period of time all developers should on average get an equal amount of quick&amp;easy and hard tickets.
In that case, the number of closed tickets might be indicative again.
Someone who barely ever closes a ticket might not be that top performer, despite the inaccuracy of the ticket measurement.
Years of experience, which is I think used the most, is maybe also the most debatable of them all.
It's a very natural measurement tool which takes no personal stuff into account.
It's a very basic and easy to measure number.
But here too, it can be deceiving.
I've seen programmers who had some 8 years of Java experience, but appeared to be totally unable to pass a basic Java test and produced nothing but WTFs in their code like concatenating strings to each other with commas in between instead of storing them into a list, simply because they didn't grasp how a simple list actually worked!
(I kid you not, I actually encountered this).
In contrast with this, there's the guy (or gal) taking up some part-time job while still studying, who understands even complex stuff in the blink of an eye and produce nothing but exemplary code.
But here too, given a group of all reasonable knowledgeable programmers, the ones with the most experience typically win out.
When I look at my own code that I produced 10 years ago and compare it with what I produce now, I most definitely see a vast improvement.
Even though management might often have difficulties with measuring the performance of a programmer, there is one group of people who are true experts here: the team mates of said programmer; his or her fellow programmers!
If you have worked in a team for some time, everybody knows who's the ace, who's the simply capable one and who is obviously trailing behind.
As a programmer you actually work with the code of that other programmer.
You are either able to extend that code with the greatest ease because of the elegant design and clear names being used, or you curse every minute that you have to spent in that code.
As a programmer, you actually know whether the answer you get from that other programmer actually makes sense.
If he or she answers your every question with a "yeah, well, uhm, it's not supposed to do that, but sometimes it happens anyway.
I have no idea why, must be a strange VM error", they you simply *know* that person is subpar.
On the other hand, if you almost always get an answer detailing you the exact location of some occurrence and a short but concise explanation under which condition something happens and why, you *know* this person is ace ;) 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538470</id>
	<title>Re:Another contributor to productivity invisibilit</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259745780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why I've always had the utmost sympathy for sysadmins. If everything is working perfectly, they're invisible. But if something is broken, THEN they get all the attention!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I 've always had the utmost sympathy for sysadmins .
If everything is working perfectly , they 're invisible .
But if something is broken , THEN they get all the attention !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I've always had the utmost sympathy for sysadmins.
If everything is working perfectly, they're invisible.
But if something is broken, THEN they get all the attention!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394</id>
	<title>Value, labor and the fallacy of mixing the two</title>
	<author>steve buttgereit</author>
	<datestamp>1259745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Austrian School of Economics in determining the value of products actually discounts the idea that the value of the end product is somehow connected to the labor expended in producing the product.  There are many examples of this in tangible products... for example in the art market, a painter, prior to earning fame may not be able to sell a painting at all or only for a few dollars; after the painter earns fame (and is probably dead) that same painting worth a few dollars many now be worth tens of thousands of dollars.  The labor that went into the product didn't change... it's still the same product.  But the value of that product to society increased through unmeasurable and intangible factors.</p><p>The same amount of code and development time may have gone into a $20 dollar shareware game and a $500 dollar business app.  Assuming both sell equal copies, which has more value?  Which was the more 'productive'?  By looking at lines of code and development time alone their value should be equal, but that's not the case.  True the idea behind each of those apps contributed to the overall value differently, but even then the ideas may have taken the same 'labor' to develop while producing uneven value.</p><p>I've managed development teams myself.  Over time I've learned how long certain types of feature take to develop and how well they should work in that given period of time... sort of a baseline.  If a develop provides the product in less than that time with the same quality that developer is clearly more productive than a developer that fails to meet that baseline.  This could be formalized to a degree, but would still maintain subjective standards of quality and estimates of effort.  I agree with the premise of the posting however... you cannot judge productivity on scientifically measured quantities like lines of code or number of bugs; coding is too creative an endeavor for that and it starts to look like judging value in the way the Austrians rejected long ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Austrian School of Economics in determining the value of products actually discounts the idea that the value of the end product is somehow connected to the labor expended in producing the product .
There are many examples of this in tangible products... for example in the art market , a painter , prior to earning fame may not be able to sell a painting at all or only for a few dollars ; after the painter earns fame ( and is probably dead ) that same painting worth a few dollars many now be worth tens of thousands of dollars .
The labor that went into the product did n't change... it 's still the same product .
But the value of that product to society increased through unmeasurable and intangible factors.The same amount of code and development time may have gone into a $ 20 dollar shareware game and a $ 500 dollar business app .
Assuming both sell equal copies , which has more value ?
Which was the more 'productive ' ?
By looking at lines of code and development time alone their value should be equal , but that 's not the case .
True the idea behind each of those apps contributed to the overall value differently , but even then the ideas may have taken the same 'labor ' to develop while producing uneven value.I 've managed development teams myself .
Over time I 've learned how long certain types of feature take to develop and how well they should work in that given period of time... sort of a baseline .
If a develop provides the product in less than that time with the same quality that developer is clearly more productive than a developer that fails to meet that baseline .
This could be formalized to a degree , but would still maintain subjective standards of quality and estimates of effort .
I agree with the premise of the posting however... you can not judge productivity on scientifically measured quantities like lines of code or number of bugs ; coding is too creative an endeavor for that and it starts to look like judging value in the way the Austrians rejected long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Austrian School of Economics in determining the value of products actually discounts the idea that the value of the end product is somehow connected to the labor expended in producing the product.
There are many examples of this in tangible products... for example in the art market, a painter, prior to earning fame may not be able to sell a painting at all or only for a few dollars; after the painter earns fame (and is probably dead) that same painting worth a few dollars many now be worth tens of thousands of dollars.
The labor that went into the product didn't change... it's still the same product.
But the value of that product to society increased through unmeasurable and intangible factors.The same amount of code and development time may have gone into a $20 dollar shareware game and a $500 dollar business app.
Assuming both sell equal copies, which has more value?
Which was the more 'productive'?
By looking at lines of code and development time alone their value should be equal, but that's not the case.
True the idea behind each of those apps contributed to the overall value differently, but even then the ideas may have taken the same 'labor' to develop while producing uneven value.I've managed development teams myself.
Over time I've learned how long certain types of feature take to develop and how well they should work in that given period of time... sort of a baseline.
If a develop provides the product in less than that time with the same quality that developer is clearly more productive than a developer that fails to meet that baseline.
This could be formalized to a degree, but would still maintain subjective standards of quality and estimates of effort.
I agree with the premise of the posting however... you cannot judge productivity on scientifically measured quantities like lines of code or number of bugs; coding is too creative an endeavor for that and it starts to look like judging value in the way the Austrians rejected long ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538768</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote from folklore.org</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259747700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, here's another, but just zis guy, y'know:</p><p>"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , here 's another , but just zis guy , y'know : " One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code .
" - Ken Thompson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, here's another, but just zis guy, y'know:"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code.
" - Ken Thompson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543480</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1261666500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because the accounting system isn't giving the programming department a commission.</p><p>Just burn them and then when they give out sweep the ashes in the garbage.</p><p>Perhaps programmers and geeks in general are better off if they learn how to negotiate and play hardball like everyone else but methinks if they do that they'll lose part of the geekery that makes them good at their job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because the accounting system is n't giving the programming department a commission.Just burn them and then when they give out sweep the ashes in the garbage.Perhaps programmers and geeks in general are better off if they learn how to negotiate and play hardball like everyone else but methinks if they do that they 'll lose part of the geekery that makes them good at their job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because the accounting system isn't giving the programming department a commission.Just burn them and then when they give out sweep the ashes in the garbage.Perhaps programmers and geeks in general are better off if they learn how to negotiate and play hardball like everyone else but methinks if they do that they'll lose part of the geekery that makes them good at their job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539260</id>
	<title>Re:Value, labor and the fallacy of mixing the two</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1259751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Austrian School of Economics in determining the value of products actually discounts the idea that the value of the end product is somehow connected to the labor expended in producing the product.</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't attribute that to the Austrian School.  That's fundamental to economics of any modern school (Keynesian, Chicago, etc).<br> <br>The value of a good is simply what people will pay for that good -- no more, no less.  <br> <br>I don't know why you think the Austrian school is special in any way in this regard.  Perhaps because you have no exposure to other economic schools of thought?  Or never had any kind of formal economic education (like Micro or Macro 101?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Austrian School of Economics in determining the value of products actually discounts the idea that the value of the end product is somehow connected to the labor expended in producing the product.Do n't attribute that to the Austrian School .
That 's fundamental to economics of any modern school ( Keynesian , Chicago , etc ) .
The value of a good is simply what people will pay for that good -- no more , no less .
I do n't know why you think the Austrian school is special in any way in this regard .
Perhaps because you have no exposure to other economic schools of thought ?
Or never had any kind of formal economic education ( like Micro or Macro 101 ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Austrian School of Economics in determining the value of products actually discounts the idea that the value of the end product is somehow connected to the labor expended in producing the product.Don't attribute that to the Austrian School.
That's fundamental to economics of any modern school (Keynesian, Chicago, etc).
The value of a good is simply what people will pay for that good -- no more, no less.
I don't know why you think the Austrian school is special in any way in this regard.
Perhaps because you have no exposure to other economic schools of thought?
Or never had any kind of formal economic education (like Micro or Macro 101?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540850</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259762880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree with you more. He is a ignorant PITA and for some reason people follow him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree with you more .
He is a ignorant PITA and for some reason people follow him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree with you more.
He is a ignorant PITA and for some reason people follow him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542378</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>darthvader100</author>
	<datestamp>1261686240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfireable = unpromotable</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfireable = unpromotable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfireable = unpromotable</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539588</id>
	<title>Same As Many Other Jobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the same as many other jobs. And, by the way, if you can't measure the direct impact easily, human nature and the basics of organization mean that in almost any medium to large entity, those who are highly productive, but not measurably so, will be underpaid relative to those who are measurably productive.</p><p>Now you finally understand why your pay sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the same as many other jobs .
And , by the way , if you ca n't measure the direct impact easily , human nature and the basics of organization mean that in almost any medium to large entity , those who are highly productive , but not measurably so , will be underpaid relative to those who are measurably productive.Now you finally understand why your pay sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the same as many other jobs.
And, by the way, if you can't measure the direct impact easily, human nature and the basics of organization mean that in almost any medium to large entity, those who are highly productive, but not measurably so, will be underpaid relative to those who are measurably productive.Now you finally understand why your pay sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540726</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259761860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A lot of great programmers fail to understand the business side of things.<br>it's not their job to, and if managed properly, they don't need to know.m<br>If that is a problem, then it's managements fault for not managing...well.</p><p>"And you can never control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline and a bad manager."<br>yes you can. just talk to the stakeholders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A lot of great programmers fail to understand the business side of things.it 's not their job to , and if managed properly , they do n't need to know.mIf that is a problem , then it 's managements fault for not managing...well .
" And you can never control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline and a bad manager .
" yes you can .
just talk to the stakeholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A lot of great programmers fail to understand the business side of things.it's not their job to, and if managed properly, they don't need to know.mIf that is a problem, then it's managements fault for not managing...well.
"And you can never control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline and a bad manager.
"yes you can.
just talk to the stakeholders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102</id>
	<title>Also</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1259786760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in addition to the factors pointed out by others there is this:</p><p>Programmer "A" is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach "Y" is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.<br>Programmer "B" is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach "P" is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.<br>Programmer "C" is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach "3" is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.</p><p>I've seen A,B, and C get into very loud, very heated arguments over this (I've been programmer A at times when I thought the "solid" approach was missing something that I saw intuitively which they wouldn't accept until I proved it to them laboriously).</p><p>Programming is not plumbing.  The goal posts are subject to change.</p><p>What is efficiency?</p><p>Delivering a 100\% perfect product 3 months late?<br>Delivering a 99\% perfect product 1 week early?<br>Delivering a 100\% perfect product 3 weeks early but then they change the scope and (as one manager said to me) say "this isn't scope creep".  (I turned to my programmer and asked, "can you deliver this change by the previous deadline" and they said "no" and I asked "what date can you deliver it by, and she said 5 days later, and I turned back to the sheepishly smiling manager and said, "is that date acceptable?" -- I mention this because it's a great negotiating technique.  And you avoid delivering the product later than the delivered deadline without being an ass and refusing changes).</p><p>I've known "great" programmers who were- as long as they were the only one in the company- because they used operating system cheats that worked-- as long as someone else didn't use them too.</p><p>A lot of great programmers fail to understand the business side of things.</p><p>And you can never control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline and a bad manager.</p><p>---</p><p>However, fundamentally- the compensation isn't there because there are too many people willing to do the work.  I do not recommend to people who ask me that they enter the IT field in general any more.  It's pay is not sufficient to cover the low status, increasing lack of freedom, required holiday work, and offshoring risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in addition to the factors pointed out by others there is this : Programmer " A " is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach " Y " is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.Programmer " B " is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach " P " is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.Programmer " C " is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach " 3 " is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.I 've seen A,B , and C get into very loud , very heated arguments over this ( I 've been programmer A at times when I thought the " solid " approach was missing something that I saw intuitively which they would n't accept until I proved it to them laboriously ) .Programming is not plumbing .
The goal posts are subject to change.What is efficiency ? Delivering a 100 \ % perfect product 3 months late ? Delivering a 99 \ % perfect product 1 week early ? Delivering a 100 \ % perfect product 3 weeks early but then they change the scope and ( as one manager said to me ) say " this is n't scope creep " .
( I turned to my programmer and asked , " can you deliver this change by the previous deadline " and they said " no " and I asked " what date can you deliver it by , and she said 5 days later , and I turned back to the sheepishly smiling manager and said , " is that date acceptable ?
" -- I mention this because it 's a great negotiating technique .
And you avoid delivering the product later than the delivered deadline without being an ass and refusing changes ) .I 've known " great " programmers who were- as long as they were the only one in the company- because they used operating system cheats that worked-- as long as someone else did n't use them too.A lot of great programmers fail to understand the business side of things.And you can never control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline and a bad manager.---However , fundamentally- the compensation is n't there because there are too many people willing to do the work .
I do not recommend to people who ask me that they enter the IT field in general any more .
It 's pay is not sufficient to cover the low status , increasing lack of freedom , required holiday work , and offshoring risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in addition to the factors pointed out by others there is this:Programmer "A" is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach "Y" is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.Programmer "B" is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach "P" is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.Programmer "C" is an expert and they have a strong opinion that approach "3" is the best approach- and it is a solid approach.I've seen A,B, and C get into very loud, very heated arguments over this (I've been programmer A at times when I thought the "solid" approach was missing something that I saw intuitively which they wouldn't accept until I proved it to them laboriously).Programming is not plumbing.
The goal posts are subject to change.What is efficiency?Delivering a 100\% perfect product 3 months late?Delivering a 99\% perfect product 1 week early?Delivering a 100\% perfect product 3 weeks early but then they change the scope and (as one manager said to me) say "this isn't scope creep".
(I turned to my programmer and asked, "can you deliver this change by the previous deadline" and they said "no" and I asked "what date can you deliver it by, and she said 5 days later, and I turned back to the sheepishly smiling manager and said, "is that date acceptable?
" -- I mention this because it's a great negotiating technique.
And you avoid delivering the product later than the delivered deadline without being an ass and refusing changes).I've known "great" programmers who were- as long as they were the only one in the company- because they used operating system cheats that worked-- as long as someone else didn't use them too.A lot of great programmers fail to understand the business side of things.And you can never control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline and a bad manager.---However, fundamentally- the compensation isn't there because there are too many people willing to do the work.
I do not recommend to people who ask me that they enter the IT field in general any more.
It's pay is not sufficient to cover the low status, increasing lack of freedom, required holiday work, and offshoring risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543156</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>sergueyz</author>
	<datestamp>1261661280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, he provided a rationale for a DSL right in <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FogBugzIII.html" title="joelonsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">the article</a> [joelonsoftware.com] where he tells about it.<p>And he tells there that they done that precisely to create more revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , he provided a rationale for a DSL right in the article [ joelonsoftware.com ] where he tells about it.And he tells there that they done that precisely to create more revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, he provided a rationale for a DSL right in the article [joelonsoftware.com] where he tells about it.And he tells there that they done that precisely to create more revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543922</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261670340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Joel" is one of the all-time great Slashd0t self-promoters.  He is a typical member of his species.  Look at how often he's been mentioned on this site.  How fortunate for him that he operates in a country where 99\% of the population consists of pathetic advertising victims with no critical-thinking skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Joel " is one of the all-time great Slashd0t self-promoters .
He is a typical member of his species .
Look at how often he 's been mentioned on this site .
How fortunate for him that he operates in a country where 99 \ % of the population consists of pathetic advertising victims with no critical-thinking skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Joel" is one of the all-time great Slashd0t self-promoters.
He is a typical member of his species.
Look at how often he's been mentioned on this site.
How fortunate for him that he operates in a country where 99\% of the population consists of pathetic advertising victims with no critical-thinking skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538206</id>
	<title>Lost me at the first sentence</title>
	<author>PHPNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1259787360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The most productive programmers <b>are</b> orders of magnitude more productive than average programmers.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most productive programmers are orders of magnitude more productive than average programmers.There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most productive programmers are orders of magnitude more productive than average programmers.There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540736</id>
	<title>Re:Another contributor to productivity invisibilit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259761920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't consider myself uber-coder, but somehow the description fits. I would call the uber-coder as a strategic coder because he/she will overlook whole project and see the problems coming ahead of time. Unfortunately the position in programming team doesn't always allow these programmers to excel and stacks too much mundane work on them. If organization is functioning properly these programmer are recognized and given lead, architect, mentor roles that will enable whole unit complete tasks faster due to coherent direction and technical solutions this uber-coder provides. On my career the programming positions I have held have ended up first as Software Architect, and second as Director level quite quickly and overall contribution as lines of code has never been that great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't consider myself uber-coder , but somehow the description fits .
I would call the uber-coder as a strategic coder because he/she will overlook whole project and see the problems coming ahead of time .
Unfortunately the position in programming team does n't always allow these programmers to excel and stacks too much mundane work on them .
If organization is functioning properly these programmer are recognized and given lead , architect , mentor roles that will enable whole unit complete tasks faster due to coherent direction and technical solutions this uber-coder provides .
On my career the programming positions I have held have ended up first as Software Architect , and second as Director level quite quickly and overall contribution as lines of code has never been that great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't consider myself uber-coder, but somehow the description fits.
I would call the uber-coder as a strategic coder because he/she will overlook whole project and see the problems coming ahead of time.
Unfortunately the position in programming team doesn't always allow these programmers to excel and stacks too much mundane work on them.
If organization is functioning properly these programmer are recognized and given lead, architect, mentor roles that will enable whole unit complete tasks faster due to coherent direction and technical solutions this uber-coder provides.
On my career the programming positions I have held have ended up first as Software Architect, and second as Director level quite quickly and overall contribution as lines of code has never been that great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538968</id>
	<title>Budgetary restrictions</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1259749080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a large company a software engineer is hired to fill a well-defined position with a specific budget. There is only so much room to increase the monetary and equity compensation.
And that's subject to strict corporate guidlines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a large company a software engineer is hired to fill a well-defined position with a specific budget .
There is only so much room to increase the monetary and equity compensation .
And that 's subject to strict corporate guidlines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a large company a software engineer is hired to fill a well-defined position with a specific budget.
There is only so much room to increase the monetary and equity compensation.
And that's subject to strict corporate guidlines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538446</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>chthon</author>
	<datestamp>1259745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad that there are other people who have the same symptoms as I, when it comes to programming. Last week Thursday I just wasted 6 hours doing nothing on my job. Friday it got better and Monday I was back up to speed. But I have the same behaviour on my own hobby projects, yes, it really feels as if you are hatching something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad that there are other people who have the same symptoms as I , when it comes to programming .
Last week Thursday I just wasted 6 hours doing nothing on my job .
Friday it got better and Monday I was back up to speed .
But I have the same behaviour on my own hobby projects , yes , it really feels as if you are hatching something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad that there are other people who have the same symptoms as I, when it comes to programming.
Last week Thursday I just wasted 6 hours doing nothing on my job.
Friday it got better and Monday I was back up to speed.
But I have the same behaviour on my own hobby projects, yes, it really feels as if you are hatching something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538706</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1259747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All great points. There's also one possible effect that is even harder to measure (perhaps impossible) and that's morale. You can watch the slower worker all day and not realize that he's the one that's keeping all the other faster guys happy and doing good work at a good pace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All great points .
There 's also one possible effect that is even harder to measure ( perhaps impossible ) and that 's morale .
You can watch the slower worker all day and not realize that he 's the one that 's keeping all the other faster guys happy and doing good work at a good pace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All great points.
There's also one possible effect that is even harder to measure (perhaps impossible) and that's morale.
You can watch the slower worker all day and not realize that he's the one that's keeping all the other faster guys happy and doing good work at a good pace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538510</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1259746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes so long as efficiency isn't your primary objective.  I worked on a scrum team a while back and it seems to me that daily meetings to discuss what everyone did yesterday is about as efficient as one person doing all the work themselves.  Scrum doesn't really measure the overall contribution of any one team member.  It's more for management to stay apprised of the progress on the project.  When you have the guy that does the code bugging the guy from QA to look at his code all day and helping him write it Scrum doesn't really identify the guy that isn't able to do jack on his own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes so long as efficiency is n't your primary objective .
I worked on a scrum team a while back and it seems to me that daily meetings to discuss what everyone did yesterday is about as efficient as one person doing all the work themselves .
Scrum does n't really measure the overall contribution of any one team member .
It 's more for management to stay apprised of the progress on the project .
When you have the guy that does the code bugging the guy from QA to look at his code all day and helping him write it Scrum does n't really identify the guy that is n't able to do jack on his own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes so long as efficiency isn't your primary objective.
I worked on a scrum team a while back and it seems to me that daily meetings to discuss what everyone did yesterday is about as efficient as one person doing all the work themselves.
Scrum doesn't really measure the overall contribution of any one team member.
It's more for management to stay apprised of the progress on the project.
When you have the guy that does the code bugging the guy from QA to look at his code all day and helping him write it Scrum doesn't really identify the guy that isn't able to do jack on his own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030</id>
	<title>I don't even think it's that well-defined.</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1259786400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have, on rare occasions, been Amazingly Productive.  There are very narrowly-defined kinds of work where I am super fast.  One of them is debugging.  So, when we were doing our "no new features, clear out every P1 and P2 bug in this branch" run, I was awesome -- I regularly fixed many more bugs than anyone else.  On the other hand... A lot of the time, I'm not much good.  If I have a bad-ADHD week, I can have an entire day go by where I simply never quite get around to doing anything but mostly keeping up on my inbox.</p><p>So am I super productive, or not very productive, or what?  I don't know.  Realistically, the answer is probably "if you give me the sorts of work I'm good at, I'm great, otherwise I'm sorta mediocre."  But I'm not sure how you'd measure that.</p><p>There's also a much more basic failure-to-apply-economics in the article.  The value of something which does 10x as much is not necessarily exactly 10x.  Is a monitor with 3x as many pixels worth exactly 3x as much?  No.  Is a video card which can render exactly 2x as many polygons worth exactly 2x as much?  No.  On the high end, you might see people paying 2x as much for 20\% more polygons.  On the low end, you might see people paying 20\% more for 5x more polygons.  Or there might be other factors; you might care about power consumption, or form factor, or...</p><p>I just bought a new Eee.  It's SLOWER than the previous one I was using.  I paid about the same amount for it, several months later.  But it has a higher resolution display, and better battery life... So is it worth the same amount?  I have no clue.</p><p>Long story short:  The marginal value of the "more productive programmer" is not necessarily linear with productivity.  Add in other complexities (plays-well-with-others, can do trade shows, reliable about giving feedback on progress) and general market forces, and I don't think it's just a question of measurement; I think it's largely that, in general, programmers are willing to work for comparable amounts of money, and the marginal benefits aren't as large as you might think they would be if you looked only at some measure of productivity.  Even if it were a very good measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have , on rare occasions , been Amazingly Productive .
There are very narrowly-defined kinds of work where I am super fast .
One of them is debugging .
So , when we were doing our " no new features , clear out every P1 and P2 bug in this branch " run , I was awesome -- I regularly fixed many more bugs than anyone else .
On the other hand... A lot of the time , I 'm not much good .
If I have a bad-ADHD week , I can have an entire day go by where I simply never quite get around to doing anything but mostly keeping up on my inbox.So am I super productive , or not very productive , or what ?
I do n't know .
Realistically , the answer is probably " if you give me the sorts of work I 'm good at , I 'm great , otherwise I 'm sorta mediocre .
" But I 'm not sure how you 'd measure that.There 's also a much more basic failure-to-apply-economics in the article .
The value of something which does 10x as much is not necessarily exactly 10x .
Is a monitor with 3x as many pixels worth exactly 3x as much ?
No. Is a video card which can render exactly 2x as many polygons worth exactly 2x as much ?
No. On the high end , you might see people paying 2x as much for 20 \ % more polygons .
On the low end , you might see people paying 20 \ % more for 5x more polygons .
Or there might be other factors ; you might care about power consumption , or form factor , or...I just bought a new Eee .
It 's SLOWER than the previous one I was using .
I paid about the same amount for it , several months later .
But it has a higher resolution display , and better battery life... So is it worth the same amount ?
I have no clue.Long story short : The marginal value of the " more productive programmer " is not necessarily linear with productivity .
Add in other complexities ( plays-well-with-others , can do trade shows , reliable about giving feedback on progress ) and general market forces , and I do n't think it 's just a question of measurement ; I think it 's largely that , in general , programmers are willing to work for comparable amounts of money , and the marginal benefits are n't as large as you might think they would be if you looked only at some measure of productivity .
Even if it were a very good measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have, on rare occasions, been Amazingly Productive.
There are very narrowly-defined kinds of work where I am super fast.
One of them is debugging.
So, when we were doing our "no new features, clear out every P1 and P2 bug in this branch" run, I was awesome -- I regularly fixed many more bugs than anyone else.
On the other hand... A lot of the time, I'm not much good.
If I have a bad-ADHD week, I can have an entire day go by where I simply never quite get around to doing anything but mostly keeping up on my inbox.So am I super productive, or not very productive, or what?
I don't know.
Realistically, the answer is probably "if you give me the sorts of work I'm good at, I'm great, otherwise I'm sorta mediocre.
"  But I'm not sure how you'd measure that.There's also a much more basic failure-to-apply-economics in the article.
The value of something which does 10x as much is not necessarily exactly 10x.
Is a monitor with 3x as many pixels worth exactly 3x as much?
No.  Is a video card which can render exactly 2x as many polygons worth exactly 2x as much?
No.  On the high end, you might see people paying 2x as much for 20\% more polygons.
On the low end, you might see people paying 20\% more for 5x more polygons.
Or there might be other factors; you might care about power consumption, or form factor, or...I just bought a new Eee.
It's SLOWER than the previous one I was using.
I paid about the same amount for it, several months later.
But it has a higher resolution display, and better battery life... So is it worth the same amount?
I have no clue.Long story short:  The marginal value of the "more productive programmer" is not necessarily linear with productivity.
Add in other complexities (plays-well-with-others, can do trade shows, reliable about giving feedback on progress) and general market forces, and I don't think it's just a question of measurement; I think it's largely that, in general, programmers are willing to work for comparable amounts of money, and the marginal benefits aren't as large as you might think they would be if you looked only at some measure of productivity.
Even if it were a very good measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538466</id>
	<title>and!</title>
	<author>hypergreatthing</author>
	<datestamp>1259745780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reads websites all day long like slashdot to broaden their horizons while thinking of how to do things better! Exactly!</p><p>Now how do i get a raise for doing that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reads websites all day long like slashdot to broaden their horizons while thinking of how to do things better !
Exactly ! Now how do i get a raise for doing that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reads websites all day long like slashdot to broaden their horizons while thinking of how to do things better!
Exactly!Now how do i get a raise for doing that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538452</id>
	<title>Programming and Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of observations....  An Artist expects a royalty because they have, well, produced art.  And art can be enjoyed over and over, replicated in many ways, and serve as the starting point or context for additional works of art.</p><p>The same thing can be said about programming.  Even more so, because a great sort, or a great compiler, or a great debugger, gives and gives, and produces work that can be leveraged over and over in new contexts.</p><p>This leads me to a personal story.  Once upon a time, I wrote a great rules engine for the State of Texas.  The use of this rules engine turned around a portion of the project that was at the time 6 months late at the time I joined.  The group I joined was slated to have the most programmers of any of the various portions of the project.  In two months, using my approach and technology, they caught up all of the 6 months of lost ground, were never behind schedule again (except when other teams failed to deliver), and was the smallest group of the seven teams.</p><p>I built a tool that allowed nearly anyone to step into anyone else's section of the policies we were implementing, and debug and fix the rules.  Was it perfect? No, but I had great plans.</p><p>So about a year into the effort, I went to management and suggested a list of productivity improvements we could make.</p><p>And they gave me my walking papers.</p><p>You see, what I had built had no bugs.  It allowed nearly any developer to step into any role and be productive.  They began moving as much of the system into the Rules because the Rules Engine made big problems simply go away.</p><p>I was an amazingly productive programmer, because I coded my entire job away.</p><p>Now after having written four versions of the Rules Engine (because I kept doing it for other projects and other companies) and having coded myself out of a job 3 times, I finally did the last version as an open source project.  And because I used it in my current job on a project, with a number of those improvements alluded to earlier, on the second project on my current job, they didn't even need me.  A fresh out of college business analyst made all the changes from the rules on the first project for the second project.  I only had to give a bit of tutoring, and some nudges here and there at the beginning.</p><p>And at the current job, I again am getting some feeling that the software development group is grumbling about my productivity.  They don't care about the Rules Engine, because they have it.  They don't care about the improvements, because they have them.   Any additional work I do to the Rules Engine I do on my own time, and I find myself increasingly refactoring code, adding database tables, and fixing various Java bugs.</p><p>I fear I have again coded myself out of the most interesting parts of my job.</p><p>At least if this job dries up, I won't have to rewrite everything a fifth time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of observations.... An Artist expects a royalty because they have , well , produced art .
And art can be enjoyed over and over , replicated in many ways , and serve as the starting point or context for additional works of art.The same thing can be said about programming .
Even more so , because a great sort , or a great compiler , or a great debugger , gives and gives , and produces work that can be leveraged over and over in new contexts.This leads me to a personal story .
Once upon a time , I wrote a great rules engine for the State of Texas .
The use of this rules engine turned around a portion of the project that was at the time 6 months late at the time I joined .
The group I joined was slated to have the most programmers of any of the various portions of the project .
In two months , using my approach and technology , they caught up all of the 6 months of lost ground , were never behind schedule again ( except when other teams failed to deliver ) , and was the smallest group of the seven teams.I built a tool that allowed nearly anyone to step into anyone else 's section of the policies we were implementing , and debug and fix the rules .
Was it perfect ?
No , but I had great plans.So about a year into the effort , I went to management and suggested a list of productivity improvements we could make.And they gave me my walking papers.You see , what I had built had no bugs .
It allowed nearly any developer to step into any role and be productive .
They began moving as much of the system into the Rules because the Rules Engine made big problems simply go away.I was an amazingly productive programmer , because I coded my entire job away.Now after having written four versions of the Rules Engine ( because I kept doing it for other projects and other companies ) and having coded myself out of a job 3 times , I finally did the last version as an open source project .
And because I used it in my current job on a project , with a number of those improvements alluded to earlier , on the second project on my current job , they did n't even need me .
A fresh out of college business analyst made all the changes from the rules on the first project for the second project .
I only had to give a bit of tutoring , and some nudges here and there at the beginning.And at the current job , I again am getting some feeling that the software development group is grumbling about my productivity .
They do n't care about the Rules Engine , because they have it .
They do n't care about the improvements , because they have them .
Any additional work I do to the Rules Engine I do on my own time , and I find myself increasingly refactoring code , adding database tables , and fixing various Java bugs.I fear I have again coded myself out of the most interesting parts of my job.At least if this job dries up , I wo n't have to rewrite everything a fifth time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of observations....  An Artist expects a royalty because they have, well, produced art.
And art can be enjoyed over and over, replicated in many ways, and serve as the starting point or context for additional works of art.The same thing can be said about programming.
Even more so, because a great sort, or a great compiler, or a great debugger, gives and gives, and produces work that can be leveraged over and over in new contexts.This leads me to a personal story.
Once upon a time, I wrote a great rules engine for the State of Texas.
The use of this rules engine turned around a portion of the project that was at the time 6 months late at the time I joined.
The group I joined was slated to have the most programmers of any of the various portions of the project.
In two months, using my approach and technology, they caught up all of the 6 months of lost ground, were never behind schedule again (except when other teams failed to deliver), and was the smallest group of the seven teams.I built a tool that allowed nearly anyone to step into anyone else's section of the policies we were implementing, and debug and fix the rules.
Was it perfect?
No, but I had great plans.So about a year into the effort, I went to management and suggested a list of productivity improvements we could make.And they gave me my walking papers.You see, what I had built had no bugs.
It allowed nearly any developer to step into any role and be productive.
They began moving as much of the system into the Rules because the Rules Engine made big problems simply go away.I was an amazingly productive programmer, because I coded my entire job away.Now after having written four versions of the Rules Engine (because I kept doing it for other projects and other companies) and having coded myself out of a job 3 times, I finally did the last version as an open source project.
And because I used it in my current job on a project, with a number of those improvements alluded to earlier, on the second project on my current job, they didn't even need me.
A fresh out of college business analyst made all the changes from the rules on the first project for the second project.
I only had to give a bit of tutoring, and some nudges here and there at the beginning.And at the current job, I again am getting some feeling that the software development group is grumbling about my productivity.
They don't care about the Rules Engine, because they have it.
They don't care about the improvements, because they have them.
Any additional work I do to the Rules Engine I do on my own time, and I find myself increasingly refactoring code, adding database tables, and fixing various Java bugs.I fear I have again coded myself out of the most interesting parts of my job.At least if this job dries up, I won't have to rewrite everything a fifth time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538534</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.</p></div><p>Right.  And my definition of an "uber" physicist is one that can write up the Theory of Everything as soon as I snap my fingers.</p><p>There are a lot of programmers in this world who can type out code quickly, as soon as you ask for it.  It might even work.  It's probably still crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me an " uber " programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking " I 've seen this before " , but rather , without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.Right .
And my definition of an " uber " physicist is one that can write up the Theory of Everything as soon as I snap my fingers.There are a lot of programmers in this world who can type out code quickly , as soon as you ask for it .
It might even work .
It 's probably still crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.Right.
And my definition of an "uber" physicist is one that can write up the Theory of Everything as soon as I snap my fingers.There are a lot of programmers in this world who can type out code quickly, as soon as you ask for it.
It might even work.
It's probably still crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542328</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261685280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've made an excellent case to explain why corporations hate the GNU GPL.</p><p>The GNU GPL means that something that could have been monetized through artificial scarcity has now slipped into the hands of the consumer without collecting any money.</p><p>Who do these damn "creative type" software developers think they are, giving their useful creations away for the benefit of society? No profit in it?!? That's so un-American it's practically communist!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've made an excellent case to explain why corporations hate the GNU GPL.The GNU GPL means that something that could have been monetized through artificial scarcity has now slipped into the hands of the consumer without collecting any money.Who do these damn " creative type " software developers think they are , giving their useful creations away for the benefit of society ?
No profit in it ? ! ?
That 's so un-American it 's practically communist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've made an excellent case to explain why corporations hate the GNU GPL.The GNU GPL means that something that could have been monetized through artificial scarcity has now slipped into the hands of the consumer without collecting any money.Who do these damn "creative type" software developers think they are, giving their useful creations away for the benefit of society?
No profit in it?!?
That's so un-American it's practically communist!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539290</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>FauxPasIII</author>
	<datestamp>1259751300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems you're also a big Uncyclopedia contributer, too..</p><p><a href="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/AAAAAAAAA" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/AAAAAAAAA</a> [wikia.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems you 're also a big Uncyclopedia contributer , too..http : //uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/AAAAAAAAA [ wikia.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems you're also a big Uncyclopedia contributer, too..http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/AAAAAAAAA [wikia.com]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146</id>
	<title>What about the slow workers</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1259787000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious too</p></div><p>And he'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad.
</p><p>Many years ago, I had the opportunity to assist on a s/w project to replace a (broken) legacy system. It had been identified by the FAA as not providing proper control over engineering data sufficient to maintain our production certification. And, over the years it had cost the company about $250 million to build and maintain. So we (myself and five other developers) build a new system over the course of about 6 months. It was blessed by the FAA and manufacturing loved it (it actually worked). After it was all done, my team got<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....
</p><p>...laid off.
</p><p>Aside from actual coding shops, where the s/w IS your company's product, the whole free market capitalist model breaks down. The further you are away from the finished product, the more the corporation resembles a socialist economy, where headcount matters more than productivity. And much, if not most, software is produced in this setting. MS Word may sell millions of copies, but the are more lines of code (or kBytes of executable) developed internally. My boss only had 5 people under him. He was a first level manager. The legacy system employed over 100, making its manager a unit chief over several layers of PHBs. Guess who has the political power in that organization.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious tooAnd he 'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad .
Many years ago , I had the opportunity to assist on a s/w project to replace a ( broken ) legacy system .
It had been identified by the FAA as not providing proper control over engineering data sufficient to maintain our production certification .
And , over the years it had cost the company about $ 250 million to build and maintain .
So we ( myself and five other developers ) build a new system over the course of about 6 months .
It was blessed by the FAA and manufacturing loved it ( it actually worked ) .
After it was all done , my team got ... . ...laid off .
Aside from actual coding shops , where the s/w IS your company 's product , the whole free market capitalist model breaks down .
The further you are away from the finished product , the more the corporation resembles a socialist economy , where headcount matters more than productivity .
And much , if not most , software is produced in this setting .
MS Word may sell millions of copies , but the are more lines of code ( or kBytes of executable ) developed internally .
My boss only had 5 people under him .
He was a first level manager .
The legacy system employed over 100 , making its manager a unit chief over several layers of PHBs .
Guess who has the political power in that organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious tooAnd he'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad.
Many years ago, I had the opportunity to assist on a s/w project to replace a (broken) legacy system.
It had been identified by the FAA as not providing proper control over engineering data sufficient to maintain our production certification.
And, over the years it had cost the company about $250 million to build and maintain.
So we (myself and five other developers) build a new system over the course of about 6 months.
It was blessed by the FAA and manufacturing loved it (it actually worked).
After it was all done, my team got ....
...laid off.
Aside from actual coding shops, where the s/w IS your company's product, the whole free market capitalist model breaks down.
The further you are away from the finished product, the more the corporation resembles a socialist economy, where headcount matters more than productivity.
And much, if not most, software is produced in this setting.
MS Word may sell millions of copies, but the are more lines of code (or kBytes of executable) developed internally.
My boss only had 5 people under him.
He was a first level manager.
The legacy system employed over 100, making its manager a unit chief over several layers of PHBs.
Guess who has the political power in that organization.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538078</id>
	<title>One Word...</title>
	<author>Balial</author>
	<datestamp>1259786640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Defects"</p><p>Does the code someone produces work? And actually meet the spec? Or is it always broken and doesn't actually do what it was designed for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Defects " Does the code someone produces work ?
And actually meet the spec ?
Or is it always broken and does n't actually do what it was designed for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Defects"Does the code someone produces work?
And actually meet the spec?
Or is it always broken and doesn't actually do what it was designed for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539556</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another, shorter way (?):</p><p>Metrics are useful when you're looking for UNUSUAL aspects amongst a group of otherwise similar workers, but you should then take the time to examine said anomalies and find out the underlying cause. Only after that should you chose to act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another , shorter way ( ?
) : Metrics are useful when you 're looking for UNUSUAL aspects amongst a group of otherwise similar workers , but you should then take the time to examine said anomalies and find out the underlying cause .
Only after that should you chose to act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another, shorter way (?
):Metrics are useful when you're looking for UNUSUAL aspects amongst a group of otherwise similar workers, but you should then take the time to examine said anomalies and find out the underlying cause.
Only after that should you chose to act.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537976</id>
	<title>Slashdotted!</title>
	<author>alop</author>
	<datestamp>1259786100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was quick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was quick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was quick</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30544256</id>
	<title>Take a nap when I need it</title>
	<author>handy\_vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1261672800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A quick nap when I need it (which is most afternoons) makes a big difference in my productivity. I totally agree with your statement:</p><blockquote><div><p>I frequently simply go to sleep if I feel like it.... I wish this was accepted practice in workplaces because I'm sure productivity would rise overall.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick nap when I need it ( which is most afternoons ) makes a big difference in my productivity .
I totally agree with your statement : I frequently simply go to sleep if I feel like it.... I wish this was accepted practice in workplaces because I 'm sure productivity would rise overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick nap when I need it (which is most afternoons) makes a big difference in my productivity.
I totally agree with your statement:I frequently simply go to sleep if I feel like it.... I wish this was accepted practice in workplaces because I'm sure productivity would rise overall.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539096</id>
	<title>Re:Another contributor to productivity invisibilit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is *SO* true it isn't even funny.</p><p>True story. Working for a hardware company that produced a hardware product that required a fair amount of microcode to complete it, one guy's code was so solid it was practically inhuman. Everything he ever wrote just worked. When it came time to "mad rush" to get the product out and every one was fixing bugs in there stuff, he was no where to be seen. His stuff just worked and his presence wasn't needed. Management however, gave him an extremely poor review because he "wasn't pulling his weight to get the product out". Everyone was in a self induced death march, except for him and he was punished for it.</p><p>Not surprisingly, the guy left... Beware of the "hero" programmer that saves the day while not doing shit the rest of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is * SO * true it is n't even funny.True story .
Working for a hardware company that produced a hardware product that required a fair amount of microcode to complete it , one guy 's code was so solid it was practically inhuman .
Everything he ever wrote just worked .
When it came time to " mad rush " to get the product out and every one was fixing bugs in there stuff , he was no where to be seen .
His stuff just worked and his presence was n't needed .
Management however , gave him an extremely poor review because he " was n't pulling his weight to get the product out " .
Everyone was in a self induced death march , except for him and he was punished for it.Not surprisingly , the guy left... Beware of the " hero " programmer that saves the day while not doing shit the rest of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is *SO* true it isn't even funny.True story.
Working for a hardware company that produced a hardware product that required a fair amount of microcode to complete it, one guy's code was so solid it was practically inhuman.
Everything he ever wrote just worked.
When it came time to "mad rush" to get the product out and every one was fixing bugs in there stuff, he was no where to be seen.
His stuff just worked and his presence wasn't needed.
Management however, gave him an extremely poor review because he "wasn't pulling his weight to get the product out".
Everyone was in a self induced death march, except for him and he was punished for it.Not surprisingly, the guy left... Beware of the "hero" programmer that saves the day while not doing shit the rest of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538982</id>
	<title>Bricklayers</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1259749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers, this would be obvious too (it doesn't happen).</p></div></blockquote><p>Anybody who's ever worked a union job can tell you it doesn't happen because your coworkers will beat the shit out of you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers , this would be obvious too ( it does n't happen ) .Anybody who 's ever worked a union job can tell you it does n't happen because your coworkers will beat the shit out of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers, this would be obvious too (it doesn't happen).Anybody who's ever worked a union job can tell you it doesn't happen because your coworkers will beat the shit out of you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539940</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1259755920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But, code is a product, and expected to be created. The value is obvious when it's completed, but still worthless to the bean counters until someone in sales sells it to a customer.</p></div></blockquote><p>But most code is never sold to a customer. The majority of development is in-house, bespoke software. With no sales price, that makes it even harder to see the the value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , code is a product , and expected to be created .
The value is obvious when it 's completed , but still worthless to the bean counters until someone in sales sells it to a customer.But most code is never sold to a customer .
The majority of development is in-house , bespoke software .
With no sales price , that makes it even harder to see the the value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, code is a product, and expected to be created.
The value is obvious when it's completed, but still worthless to the bean counters until someone in sales sells it to a customer.But most code is never sold to a customer.
The majority of development is in-house, bespoke software.
With no sales price, that makes it even harder to see the the value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538086</id>
	<title>skip</title>
	<author>jcombel</author>
	<datestamp>1259786700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>common-sense topic<br>
first sentence has no verb<br>
second sentence starts with a conjunction<br>
ctrl f4</htmltext>
<tokenext>common-sense topic first sentence has no verb second sentence starts with a conjunction ctrl f4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>common-sense topic
first sentence has no verb
second sentence starts with a conjunction
ctrl f4</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538654</id>
	<title>Did you try marketing this to someone else?</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1259747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Code an uber-efficient program to save a manufacturing company millions and increase output.<br>2) Get laid off by a stupid manager because he craved power over the status quo.<br>3) Shop around to competitors explaining that you could do something similar for them in 6 months, especially those who have a similar legacy system.<br>4) BIG TIME PROFIT!</p><p>Sure you'd have to code from the ground up but hey it's a paycheck and I'm sure you could do it again.  That's how capitalism is supposed to work.  Eventually there's a good chance one of those companies will snap you up and realize what a gem you are.  I agree that situation sucked but that's not about capitalism, just some schmucks afraid of change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Code an uber-efficient program to save a manufacturing company millions and increase output.2 ) Get laid off by a stupid manager because he craved power over the status quo.3 ) Shop around to competitors explaining that you could do something similar for them in 6 months , especially those who have a similar legacy system.4 ) BIG TIME PROFIT ! Sure you 'd have to code from the ground up but hey it 's a paycheck and I 'm sure you could do it again .
That 's how capitalism is supposed to work .
Eventually there 's a good chance one of those companies will snap you up and realize what a gem you are .
I agree that situation sucked but that 's not about capitalism , just some schmucks afraid of change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Code an uber-efficient program to save a manufacturing company millions and increase output.2) Get laid off by a stupid manager because he craved power over the status quo.3) Shop around to competitors explaining that you could do something similar for them in 6 months, especially those who have a similar legacy system.4) BIG TIME PROFIT!Sure you'd have to code from the ground up but hey it's a paycheck and I'm sure you could do it again.
That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
Eventually there's a good chance one of those companies will snap you up and realize what a gem you are.
I agree that situation sucked but that's not about capitalism, just some schmucks afraid of change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538380</id>
	<title>Re:If something is hard to measure...</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1259745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew a couple folks in my small development shop (~20 people) who were always being rewarded because the informal metric was lines of output. I had to take over for one of the top performers after she left for vacation. Looking through her code, I discovered that the code was merely average, much like mine. I asked another top performer if I could look through his code because I wanted to better understand his interface. His was also mediocre code with roughly the same ratio of lines to output as my code was. <br> <br>

When the other top performer came back from vacation, I took the two of them into the break room and asked them why they are getting undue credit based on the "lines of output metric". They both chuckled and gave each other knowing glances before one of them said, "No, silly, it's how many lines of <i>cocaine</i> we bust out to the boss...see?" The woman pulled out a small bag of whitish powder, a razor blade, and a scratched-up mirror tile. The guy rolled up a 20 dollar bill, tight as a drum, and passed it to me. "Go! Go! Go!", they whispered as I bent down with the tooter in my nostril, snorting 3 medium-sized lines of sweet Columbian. I had felt a strong euphoria like 1,000 cups of coffee overwhelm my body. The guy giggled sheepishly in a high-pitched voice as he went back to work. The woman who was still with me chopped up 3 more gaggers and snorted them up before we fucked madly in the utility closet like wild beasts during the rut. Oh, what a day that was!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew a couple folks in my small development shop ( ~ 20 people ) who were always being rewarded because the informal metric was lines of output .
I had to take over for one of the top performers after she left for vacation .
Looking through her code , I discovered that the code was merely average , much like mine .
I asked another top performer if I could look through his code because I wanted to better understand his interface .
His was also mediocre code with roughly the same ratio of lines to output as my code was .
When the other top performer came back from vacation , I took the two of them into the break room and asked them why they are getting undue credit based on the " lines of output metric " .
They both chuckled and gave each other knowing glances before one of them said , " No , silly , it 's how many lines of cocaine we bust out to the boss...see ?
" The woman pulled out a small bag of whitish powder , a razor blade , and a scratched-up mirror tile .
The guy rolled up a 20 dollar bill , tight as a drum , and passed it to me .
" Go ! Go !
Go ! " , they whispered as I bent down with the tooter in my nostril , snorting 3 medium-sized lines of sweet Columbian .
I had felt a strong euphoria like 1,000 cups of coffee overwhelm my body .
The guy giggled sheepishly in a high-pitched voice as he went back to work .
The woman who was still with me chopped up 3 more gaggers and snorted them up before we fucked madly in the utility closet like wild beasts during the rut .
Oh , what a day that was !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew a couple folks in my small development shop (~20 people) who were always being rewarded because the informal metric was lines of output.
I had to take over for one of the top performers after she left for vacation.
Looking through her code, I discovered that the code was merely average, much like mine.
I asked another top performer if I could look through his code because I wanted to better understand his interface.
His was also mediocre code with roughly the same ratio of lines to output as my code was.
When the other top performer came back from vacation, I took the two of them into the break room and asked them why they are getting undue credit based on the "lines of output metric".
They both chuckled and gave each other knowing glances before one of them said, "No, silly, it's how many lines of cocaine we bust out to the boss...see?
" The woman pulled out a small bag of whitish powder, a razor blade, and a scratched-up mirror tile.
The guy rolled up a 20 dollar bill, tight as a drum, and passed it to me.
"Go! Go!
Go!", they whispered as I bent down with the tooter in my nostril, snorting 3 medium-sized lines of sweet Columbian.
I had felt a strong euphoria like 1,000 cups of coffee overwhelm my body.
The guy giggled sheepishly in a high-pitched voice as he went back to work.
The woman who was still with me chopped up 3 more gaggers and snorted them up before we fucked madly in the utility closet like wild beasts during the rut.
Oh, what a day that was!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984</id>
	<title>If something is hard to measure...</title>
	<author>judolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1259786160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's also hard to reward.

Also,

"Paying a developer by the line is like paying an plumber by the pipe."</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also hard to reward .
Also , " Paying a developer by the line is like paying an plumber by the pipe .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also hard to reward.
Also,

"Paying a developer by the line is like paying an plumber by the pipe.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539198</id>
	<title>programming is art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259750520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it can't be broken down and measured on a spreadsheet so that one person is easily comparable with another</p><p>and this infuriates PHBs and and business types, who can't translate a programmer's salary directly how it impacts the bottom line like they can with sales force, capital expenses, etc</p><p>in any larger organization a good programmer not only delivers good product but also carries the weight of X affirmative action hires, Y gender equity hires, and Z nepotism hires none of whom can do the job but are politically impossible to get rid of</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it ca n't be broken down and measured on a spreadsheet so that one person is easily comparable with anotherand this infuriates PHBs and and business types , who ca n't translate a programmer 's salary directly how it impacts the bottom line like they can with sales force , capital expenses , etcin any larger organization a good programmer not only delivers good product but also carries the weight of X affirmative action hires , Y gender equity hires , and Z nepotism hires none of whom can do the job but are politically impossible to get rid of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it can't be broken down and measured on a spreadsheet so that one person is easily comparable with anotherand this infuriates PHBs and and business types, who can't translate a programmer's salary directly how it impacts the bottom line like they can with sales force, capital expenses, etcin any larger organization a good programmer not only delivers good product but also carries the weight of X affirmative action hires, Y gender equity hires, and Z nepotism hires none of whom can do the job but are politically impossible to get rid of</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30547544</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1261654680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your post calls for an entirely new form of moderation.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your post calls for an entirely new form of moderation .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your post calls for an entirely new form of moderation.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30546776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539964</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>DrLang21</author>
	<datestamp>1259756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am always amazed when I hear of people getting away with crap like this.  Proper software quality control nullifies the effect of people like you and ensures that you will either be fired before you can do much damage or ensures that you will never be allowed to advance in your career due to poor coding practices that indicate you would be bad at software system design.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am always amazed when I hear of people getting away with crap like this .
Proper software quality control nullifies the effect of people like you and ensures that you will either be fired before you can do much damage or ensures that you will never be allowed to advance in your career due to poor coding practices that indicate you would be bad at software system design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am always amazed when I hear of people getting away with crap like this.
Proper software quality control nullifies the effect of people like you and ensures that you will either be fired before you can do much damage or ensures that you will never be allowed to advance in your career due to poor coding practices that indicate you would be bad at software system design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542702</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261651020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recognize the symptoms. I've come to the conclusion that my subconscious mind has a higher IQ than my conscious mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recognize the symptoms .
I 've come to the conclusion that my subconscious mind has a higher IQ than my conscious mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recognize the symptoms.
I've come to the conclusion that my subconscious mind has a higher IQ than my conscious mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539508</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1259752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I know what you're getting at, but that's only one kind of hacker, and I think the whole point of this discussion is to accept that there are more than one kind of effective hacker.</p><p>So, just to confuse things further, let me share the following:</p><p>An online database app was suffering from disastrously slow performance. The company that had commissioned the app got three of us together and (more or less) locked us in a basement for 2 weeks in a last-ditch effort to fix things. The company's guy looked after the design issues, the DB consultant worked on the data interface itself, and I wrote up the front end.</p><p>I'm not a lightning-fast typer, but when I'm confident about the code I'm writing, I can hit 60+ words a minute without really breaking a sweat. I have always written good-quality code with few if any bugs. My DB counterpart was a laconic Scot who had cut his teeth back in the days when you had to enter the operating instructions directly into the console on the front of the computer.</p><p>He typed at a rate of about 1 character a second.</p><p>So there I was, banging away on the keyboard, whipping together objects, debugging and testing at a pretty decent rate. And here's Scotty going TAP... TAP... TAP... like a metronome set to <em>dirge</em>. I'd debug, review, refactor, comment and polish, and Scotty would TAP... TAP... TAP....</p><p>But about once an hour or so, he'd pause, give his code a slow perusal, then compile. His code always ran the first time.</p><p>I was astounded, but he explained that, after years of entering <em>the entire operating environment</em>, by hand, into the front panel of a computer, he'd learned not to make mistakes. Back then, a single typo and you'd have to start all over again.</p><p>At the end of those two weeks, Scotty and I had each produced about the same amount of functionality, each at about the same level of quality.</p><p>Ever since then, I code more slowly and debug way less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me an " uber " programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking " I 've seen this before " , but rather , without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type .
I know what you 're getting at , but that 's only one kind of hacker , and I think the whole point of this discussion is to accept that there are more than one kind of effective hacker.So , just to confuse things further , let me share the following : An online database app was suffering from disastrously slow performance .
The company that had commissioned the app got three of us together and ( more or less ) locked us in a basement for 2 weeks in a last-ditch effort to fix things .
The company 's guy looked after the design issues , the DB consultant worked on the data interface itself , and I wrote up the front end.I 'm not a lightning-fast typer , but when I 'm confident about the code I 'm writing , I can hit 60 + words a minute without really breaking a sweat .
I have always written good-quality code with few if any bugs .
My DB counterpart was a laconic Scot who had cut his teeth back in the days when you had to enter the operating instructions directly into the console on the front of the computer.He typed at a rate of about 1 character a second.So there I was , banging away on the keyboard , whipping together objects , debugging and testing at a pretty decent rate .
And here 's Scotty going TAP... TAP... TAP... like a metronome set to dirge .
I 'd debug , review , refactor , comment and polish , and Scotty would TAP... TAP... TAP....But about once an hour or so , he 'd pause , give his code a slow perusal , then compile .
His code always ran the first time.I was astounded , but he explained that , after years of entering the entire operating environment , by hand , into the front panel of a computer , he 'd learned not to make mistakes .
Back then , a single typo and you 'd have to start all over again.At the end of those two weeks , Scotty and I had each produced about the same amount of functionality , each at about the same level of quality.Ever since then , I code more slowly and debug way less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.
I know what you're getting at, but that's only one kind of hacker, and I think the whole point of this discussion is to accept that there are more than one kind of effective hacker.So, just to confuse things further, let me share the following:An online database app was suffering from disastrously slow performance.
The company that had commissioned the app got three of us together and (more or less) locked us in a basement for 2 weeks in a last-ditch effort to fix things.
The company's guy looked after the design issues, the DB consultant worked on the data interface itself, and I wrote up the front end.I'm not a lightning-fast typer, but when I'm confident about the code I'm writing, I can hit 60+ words a minute without really breaking a sweat.
I have always written good-quality code with few if any bugs.
My DB counterpart was a laconic Scot who had cut his teeth back in the days when you had to enter the operating instructions directly into the console on the front of the computer.He typed at a rate of about 1 character a second.So there I was, banging away on the keyboard, whipping together objects, debugging and testing at a pretty decent rate.
And here's Scotty going TAP... TAP... TAP... like a metronome set to dirge.
I'd debug, review, refactor, comment and polish, and Scotty would TAP... TAP... TAP....But about once an hour or so, he'd pause, give his code a slow perusal, then compile.
His code always ran the first time.I was astounded, but he explained that, after years of entering the entire operating environment, by hand, into the front panel of a computer, he'd learned not to make mistakes.
Back then, a single typo and you'd have to start all over again.At the end of those two weeks, Scotty and I had each produced about the same amount of functionality, each at about the same level of quality.Ever since then, I code more slowly and debug way less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259787180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that it's probably true that it'd be very hard to come up with good metrics for a programmer, but I think people should be more careful about metrics in general.
</p><p>Sure, you can measure a bricklayer by how many bricks he can lay in an hour, but is that really how you want to measure him?  What about quality?  Doesn't it matter if the resulting wall looks good?  Doesn't it matter whether the resulting wall will hold together under stress?
</p><p>But now even those are pretty simple things.  Let's get a little more complicated.  You're a contractor and you hire 6 bricklayers.  One guy doesn't seem to work as quickly as the rest, and they all give you comparable results.  You fire the slow guy and suddenly all the other guys slow down.  Quality drops.  The client is less happy.  What happened?
</p><p>Maybe if you look into the situation, you find that the slow guy was slow because he was spending some of his time communicating with the client.  He was spending part of his time overseeing the other bricklayers, keeping them on task, and keeping them from being too sloppy with their work.  He's been serving a vital role in your team, but you don't see that just by measuring a couple simple metrics.
</p><p>Like all statistics, productivity metrics can be useful, but they can also be misleading.  You should make sure you really know what they mean before you make too many judgements on them.  In evaluating your employees, it's better if you actually know your employees and have a sense for who they are, how they work, and how they fit together as a team.  The value of a person just can't be represented in a couple of numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that it 's probably true that it 'd be very hard to come up with good metrics for a programmer , but I think people should be more careful about metrics in general .
Sure , you can measure a bricklayer by how many bricks he can lay in an hour , but is that really how you want to measure him ?
What about quality ?
Does n't it matter if the resulting wall looks good ?
Does n't it matter whether the resulting wall will hold together under stress ?
But now even those are pretty simple things .
Let 's get a little more complicated .
You 're a contractor and you hire 6 bricklayers .
One guy does n't seem to work as quickly as the rest , and they all give you comparable results .
You fire the slow guy and suddenly all the other guys slow down .
Quality drops .
The client is less happy .
What happened ?
Maybe if you look into the situation , you find that the slow guy was slow because he was spending some of his time communicating with the client .
He was spending part of his time overseeing the other bricklayers , keeping them on task , and keeping them from being too sloppy with their work .
He 's been serving a vital role in your team , but you do n't see that just by measuring a couple simple metrics .
Like all statistics , productivity metrics can be useful , but they can also be misleading .
You should make sure you really know what they mean before you make too many judgements on them .
In evaluating your employees , it 's better if you actually know your employees and have a sense for who they are , how they work , and how they fit together as a team .
The value of a person just ca n't be represented in a couple of numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that it's probably true that it'd be very hard to come up with good metrics for a programmer, but I think people should be more careful about metrics in general.
Sure, you can measure a bricklayer by how many bricks he can lay in an hour, but is that really how you want to measure him?
What about quality?
Doesn't it matter if the resulting wall looks good?
Doesn't it matter whether the resulting wall will hold together under stress?
But now even those are pretty simple things.
Let's get a little more complicated.
You're a contractor and you hire 6 bricklayers.
One guy doesn't seem to work as quickly as the rest, and they all give you comparable results.
You fire the slow guy and suddenly all the other guys slow down.
Quality drops.
The client is less happy.
What happened?
Maybe if you look into the situation, you find that the slow guy was slow because he was spending some of his time communicating with the client.
He was spending part of his time overseeing the other bricklayers, keeping them on task, and keeping them from being too sloppy with their work.
He's been serving a vital role in your team, but you don't see that just by measuring a couple simple metrics.
Like all statistics, productivity metrics can be useful, but they can also be misleading.
You should make sure you really know what they mean before you make too many judgements on them.
In evaluating your employees, it's better if you actually know your employees and have a sense for who they are, how they work, and how they fit together as a team.
The value of a person just can't be represented in a couple of numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Intron</author>
	<datestamp>1259744460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thanks never comes down to the programmers. When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done. The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.</p></div><p>This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code, and name the variables: a, aa, aAa, Aa, etc.  They can never fire me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thanks never comes down to the programmers .
When the product is completed , it 's likely they 'll be let go , since no more work needs to be done .
The sales staff could continue selling it for years , and making a profit.This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code , and name the variables : a , aa , aAa , Aa , etc .
They can never fire me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thanks never comes down to the programmers.
When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done.
The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code, and name the variables: a, aa, aAa, Aa, etc.
They can never fire me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I almost stopped reading when he said Joel Spolsky.</p><p>Joel is always looking down his nose at other coders who don't have degrees from MIT. Yet he thinks pointers are the ultimate test of a programmer. He has written one tool that is of note - Fogbugz. That is, if he even wrote the code.</p><p>He just reeks of "I know better". He wrote his own language to code-gen classic ASP applications, along with PHP. Right there is a red flag. Did they move to the new ASP.net platform? Nope. That wasn't good enough I guess. No they decided to stick with classic ASP and write a language that outputs both ASP and PHP. Epic arrogance combined with ignorance IMHO.</p><p>Then look at Fogbugz. It's just a typical bug tracking application. That's it. Did it need a new language? Hardly. So now these guys wasted all that time on something only they can use and it makes zero dollars. Way to go. Real top notch development there. Fact is his company is small potatoes.</p><p>Why do I rant on Joel? Because this guy is believing the shit he spouts and extrapolating from it. Frankly I'm sick of hearing from him about what makes a good programmer. If you aren't a good programmer yourself then STFU about what makes a good programmer. Writing a few insignificant applications doesn't make you a rock star.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost stopped reading when he said Joel Spolsky.Joel is always looking down his nose at other coders who do n't have degrees from MIT .
Yet he thinks pointers are the ultimate test of a programmer .
He has written one tool that is of note - Fogbugz .
That is , if he even wrote the code.He just reeks of " I know better " .
He wrote his own language to code-gen classic ASP applications , along with PHP .
Right there is a red flag .
Did they move to the new ASP.net platform ?
Nope. That was n't good enough I guess .
No they decided to stick with classic ASP and write a language that outputs both ASP and PHP .
Epic arrogance combined with ignorance IMHO.Then look at Fogbugz .
It 's just a typical bug tracking application .
That 's it .
Did it need a new language ?
Hardly. So now these guys wasted all that time on something only they can use and it makes zero dollars .
Way to go .
Real top notch development there .
Fact is his company is small potatoes.Why do I rant on Joel ?
Because this guy is believing the shit he spouts and extrapolating from it .
Frankly I 'm sick of hearing from him about what makes a good programmer .
If you are n't a good programmer yourself then STFU about what makes a good programmer .
Writing a few insignificant applications does n't make you a rock star .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost stopped reading when he said Joel Spolsky.Joel is always looking down his nose at other coders who don't have degrees from MIT.
Yet he thinks pointers are the ultimate test of a programmer.
He has written one tool that is of note - Fogbugz.
That is, if he even wrote the code.He just reeks of "I know better".
He wrote his own language to code-gen classic ASP applications, along with PHP.
Right there is a red flag.
Did they move to the new ASP.net platform?
Nope. That wasn't good enough I guess.
No they decided to stick with classic ASP and write a language that outputs both ASP and PHP.
Epic arrogance combined with ignorance IMHO.Then look at Fogbugz.
It's just a typical bug tracking application.
That's it.
Did it need a new language?
Hardly. So now these guys wasted all that time on something only they can use and it makes zero dollars.
Way to go.
Real top notch development there.
Fact is his company is small potatoes.Why do I rant on Joel?
Because this guy is believing the shit he spouts and extrapolating from it.
Frankly I'm sick of hearing from him about what makes a good programmer.
If you aren't a good programmer yourself then STFU about what makes a good programmer.
Writing a few insignificant applications doesn't make you a rock star.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540264</id>
	<title>Apples to Orange Bricks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259758260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A salesman creates 10-times the revenue when his sales increase that much. A bricklayer can save the cost of 10 other employees. However, software programming doesn't yield that factor-of-10 monetary benefit. A company can't survive by paying employees more than the revenue, really the profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A salesman creates 10-times the revenue when his sales increase that much .
A bricklayer can save the cost of 10 other employees .
However , software programming does n't yield that factor-of-10 monetary benefit .
A company ca n't survive by paying employees more than the revenue , really the profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A salesman creates 10-times the revenue when his sales increase that much.
A bricklayer can save the cost of 10 other employees.
However, software programming doesn't yield that factor-of-10 monetary benefit.
A company can't survive by paying employees more than the revenue, really the profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994</id>
	<title>Anecdote from folklore.org</title>
	<author>dysfunct</author>
	<datestamp>1259786220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative\_2000\_Lines\_Of\_Code.txt" title="folklore.org">This anecdote</a> [folklore.org] sums it up quite nicely. Now all we need is a few more of those and we have data<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>This anecdote [ folklore.org ] sums it up quite nicely .
Now all we need is a few more of those and we have data : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This anecdote [folklore.org] sums it up quite nicely.
Now all we need is a few more of those and we have data :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539412</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Unoti</author>
	<datestamp>1259752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Software that's finished in finite time? (Forever-finished, not just this-release-finished.)
What a concept! Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Embedded systems, for one! Consider your TV set top box, the code in your calculator, wristwatch, printer, fetal heart monitor...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software that 's finished in finite time ?
( Forever-finished , not just this-release-finished .
) What a concept !
Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there ?
Embedded systems , for one !
Consider your TV set top box , the code in your calculator , wristwatch , printer , fetal heart monitor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software that's finished in finite time?
(Forever-finished, not just this-release-finished.
)
What a concept!
Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there?
Embedded systems, for one!
Consider your TV set top box, the code in your calculator, wristwatch, printer, fetal heart monitor...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539284</id>
	<title>Re:Measurement metrics</title>
	<author>MaximumFrost</author>
	<datestamp>1259751240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>man I wish I could mod you up....</htmltext>
<tokenext>man I wish I could mod you up... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>man I wish I could mod you up....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538516</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote from folklore.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always liked this quote.</p><p>"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight" --  Bill Gates</p><p>The problem is design progress of almost anything is very difficult to measure, and when multiple people work on the same project it makes it almost impossible to sort out who did what. Sales does not have that problem because progress is not measured, however results can be measured before the paycheck is cut, and everyone is responsable for themself only. Design works differently, the end results are not immediately available, often you work in groups so your work can not be seperated from others. And you can't predict how far you are because you are always expecting unexpected hurdles and that is where you will spend your time. Trying to set a target will fail as well because almost nothing can be numerically measured to compute progress, for example starting over is some progress (you learned from your mistakes) yet it is not something that is really going to be useful either way to determine progress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always liked this quote .
" Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight " -- Bill GatesThe problem is design progress of almost anything is very difficult to measure , and when multiple people work on the same project it makes it almost impossible to sort out who did what .
Sales does not have that problem because progress is not measured , however results can be measured before the paycheck is cut , and everyone is responsable for themself only .
Design works differently , the end results are not immediately available , often you work in groups so your work can not be seperated from others .
And you ca n't predict how far you are because you are always expecting unexpected hurdles and that is where you will spend your time .
Trying to set a target will fail as well because almost nothing can be numerically measured to compute progress , for example starting over is some progress ( you learned from your mistakes ) yet it is not something that is really going to be useful either way to determine progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always liked this quote.
"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight" --  Bill GatesThe problem is design progress of almost anything is very difficult to measure, and when multiple people work on the same project it makes it almost impossible to sort out who did what.
Sales does not have that problem because progress is not measured, however results can be measured before the paycheck is cut, and everyone is responsable for themself only.
Design works differently, the end results are not immediately available, often you work in groups so your work can not be seperated from others.
And you can't predict how far you are because you are always expecting unexpected hurdles and that is where you will spend your time.
Trying to set a target will fail as well because almost nothing can be numerically measured to compute progress, for example starting over is some progress (you learned from your mistakes) yet it is not something that is really going to be useful either way to determine progress.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538424</id>
	<title>Even more effective...</title>
	<author>TheMiller</author>
	<datestamp>1259745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even more effective than the programmer that avoids writing code by writing efficient code is the programmer that writes code which allows his coworkers to write less code. If you've got someone who's good at this sort of thing, the best use for them is to write the tools that improve everyone's efficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more effective than the programmer that avoids writing code by writing efficient code is the programmer that writes code which allows his coworkers to write less code .
If you 've got someone who 's good at this sort of thing , the best use for them is to write the tools that improve everyone 's efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more effective than the programmer that avoids writing code by writing efficient code is the programmer that writes code which allows his coworkers to write less code.
If you've got someone who's good at this sort of thing, the best use for them is to write the tools that improve everyone's efficiency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540976</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1259764260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Splosky worked on Excel in the early days. That's hardly an insignificant application.</p><p>I'm not defending him - I think he's full of shit myself. I used to read his blog &amp; years ago, he actually did make sense. Now I find him less than useless. And I agree with most ofyour assessment of Fogbugz (haven't used it myself tho). But at least get your facts straight about what he has and hasn't worked on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Splosky worked on Excel in the early days .
That 's hardly an insignificant application.I 'm not defending him - I think he 's full of shit myself .
I used to read his blog &amp; years ago , he actually did make sense .
Now I find him less than useless .
And I agree with most ofyour assessment of Fogbugz ( have n't used it myself tho ) .
But at least get your facts straight about what he has and has n't worked on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Splosky worked on Excel in the early days.
That's hardly an insignificant application.I'm not defending him - I think he's full of shit myself.
I used to read his blog &amp; years ago, he actually did make sense.
Now I find him less than useless.
And I agree with most ofyour assessment of Fogbugz (haven't used it myself tho).
But at least get your facts straight about what he has and hasn't worked on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538596</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>EWillieL</author>
	<datestamp>1259746800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmm-hmm.</p><p>I've had to clean up after one of those guys. He'd crank out the first cut of a codebase, and I'd go through and factor out the instant cruft his stream of consciousness had spewed out. We actually made a pretty good team.</p><p>He was (still is) brilliant, but his codebase would quickly degenerate into an inmaintainable plate of spaghetti without someone like me, and he knew it. He told me as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmm-hmm.I 've had to clean up after one of those guys .
He 'd crank out the first cut of a codebase , and I 'd go through and factor out the instant cruft his stream of consciousness had spewed out .
We actually made a pretty good team.He was ( still is ) brilliant , but his codebase would quickly degenerate into an inmaintainable plate of spaghetti without someone like me , and he knew it .
He told me as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmm-hmm.I've had to clean up after one of those guys.
He'd crank out the first cut of a codebase, and I'd go through and factor out the instant cruft his stream of consciousness had spewed out.
We actually made a pretty good team.He was (still is) brilliant, but his codebase would quickly degenerate into an inmaintainable plate of spaghetti without someone like me, and he knew it.
He told me as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539560</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>DrCode</author>
	<datestamp>1259753220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello.  I've patented that method of naming variables with the letter 'a'.  You'll be hearing from my attorney.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello .
I 've patented that method of naming variables with the letter 'a' .
You 'll be hearing from my attorney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello.
I've patented that method of naming variables with the letter 'a'.
You'll be hearing from my attorney.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538410</id>
	<title>Re:Negative LOCs</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm always amazed when I can improve code merely by deleting part of it -- that's a real reflection on just how crappy the original code was! In general, when I'm maintaining badly designed and implemented code, it tends to get smaller, not larger. Some people think it is "finished" when there is nothing else you can think of to add to it. I prefer to think it is finished when there is no way to further simplify it. "Refactoring" is something good coders have been doing for years, before anybody decided to put a label on it.<br> <br>
One particularly bad case: C++ code for Intel's NetPort. Three classes with different names but absolutely the same body, obviously created by cut-and-paste. Anybody that didn't understand he could create a single superclass and subclass the three from that SHOULD NOT be writing C++ code!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed when I can improve code merely by deleting part of it -- that 's a real reflection on just how crappy the original code was !
In general , when I 'm maintaining badly designed and implemented code , it tends to get smaller , not larger .
Some people think it is " finished " when there is nothing else you can think of to add to it .
I prefer to think it is finished when there is no way to further simplify it .
" Refactoring " is something good coders have been doing for years , before anybody decided to put a label on it .
One particularly bad case : C + + code for Intel 's NetPort .
Three classes with different names but absolutely the same body , obviously created by cut-and-paste .
Anybody that did n't understand he could create a single superclass and subclass the three from that SHOULD NOT be writing C + + code !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed when I can improve code merely by deleting part of it -- that's a real reflection on just how crappy the original code was!
In general, when I'm maintaining badly designed and implemented code, it tends to get smaller, not larger.
Some people think it is "finished" when there is nothing else you can think of to add to it.
I prefer to think it is finished when there is no way to further simplify it.
"Refactoring" is something good coders have been doing for years, before anybody decided to put a label on it.
One particularly bad case: C++ code for Intel's NetPort.
Three classes with different names but absolutely the same body, obviously created by cut-and-paste.
Anybody that didn't understand he could create a single superclass and subclass the three from that SHOULD NOT be writing C++ code!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538582</id>
	<title>May not code at all to be best</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1259746680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was once directed to write a (motor) fleet management software package for our ~12 vehicles.  It took several days to convince management that it would be cheaper and better to purchase a commercially available solution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was once directed to write a ( motor ) fleet management software package for our ~ 12 vehicles .
It took several days to convince management that it would be cheaper and better to purchase a commercially available solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was once directed to write a (motor) fleet management software package for our ~12 vehicles.
It took several days to convince management that it would be cheaper and better to purchase a commercially available solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538420</id>
	<title>Coders save employers' butts 10 time more often</title>
	<author>WebManWalking</author>
	<datestamp>1259745420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's how to get noticed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how to get noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how to get noticed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</id>
	<title>Precisely.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1259787240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When i have a task. i find myself 'procastrinating' for days on end, unable to commit myself directly to writing the code. during the period, the task regularly comes to my mind in sudden, odd places, doing odd things, like in wc taking a dump, trying to go to sleep, going to the grocer's and so on. then, after a few days, i suddenly sit down and swiftly complete the task. it seems like im hatching things, dealing with the thing in subconscious before doing it.</p><p>the good side, it works. and good. the bad side, i feel like im procastrinating and being irresponsible during the hatching period and its annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When i have a task .
i find myself 'procastrinating ' for days on end , unable to commit myself directly to writing the code .
during the period , the task regularly comes to my mind in sudden , odd places , doing odd things , like in wc taking a dump , trying to go to sleep , going to the grocer 's and so on .
then , after a few days , i suddenly sit down and swiftly complete the task .
it seems like im hatching things , dealing with the thing in subconscious before doing it.the good side , it works .
and good .
the bad side , i feel like im procastrinating and being irresponsible during the hatching period and its annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When i have a task.
i find myself 'procastrinating' for days on end, unable to commit myself directly to writing the code.
during the period, the task regularly comes to my mind in sudden, odd places, doing odd things, like in wc taking a dump, trying to go to sleep, going to the grocer's and so on.
then, after a few days, i suddenly sit down and swiftly complete the task.
it seems like im hatching things, dealing with the thing in subconscious before doing it.the good side, it works.
and good.
the bad side, i feel like im procastrinating and being irresponsible during the hatching period and its annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542722</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>curious.corn</author>
	<datestamp>1261651320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when, pray tell, does the complex solution assemble into the mind? While spitting out some other genial synthesis, while working overtime or out of office hours or does the &#252;ber-programmer come with an infinite set of pre-solved problems?</p><p>I sincerely hope you are no supervisor, breathing down your teams' necks while lulling yourself with the productive om of trepidant fingers tapping. I've got news: the most used key you are hearing is Backspace...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when , pray tell , does the complex solution assemble into the mind ?
While spitting out some other genial synthesis , while working overtime or out of office hours or does the   ber-programmer come with an infinite set of pre-solved problems ? I sincerely hope you are no supervisor , breathing down your teams ' necks while lulling yourself with the productive om of trepidant fingers tapping .
I 've got news : the most used key you are hearing is Backspace.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when, pray tell, does the complex solution assemble into the mind?
While spitting out some other genial synthesis, while working overtime or out of office hours or does the über-programmer come with an infinite set of pre-solved problems?I sincerely hope you are no supervisor, breathing down your teams' necks while lulling yourself with the productive om of trepidant fingers tapping.
I've got news: the most used key you are hearing is Backspace...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541994</id>
	<title>Real Artists Ship!</title>
	<author>Udigs</author>
	<datestamp>1259779080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'nuff said. <br> <br>

Meaning, I could give a hoot how long a piece of code is or how long it took to write. What I *do* care about is shipping deliverables on time and within the quality standards. Nothing else matters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'nuff said .
Meaning , I could give a hoot how long a piece of code is or how long it took to write .
What I * do * care about is shipping deliverables on time and within the quality standards .
Nothing else matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'nuff said.
Meaning, I could give a hoot how long a piece of code is or how long it took to write.
What I *do* care about is shipping deliverables on time and within the quality standards.
Nothing else matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539054</id>
	<title>Re:Another contributor to productivity invisibilit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259749560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, unless the uber-coder took twice as long (usually that's the case) and requirements change mid-stream (ditto) and the hardware/distro changes as well (ditto-ditto)</p><p>It's finding the right balance folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , unless the uber-coder took twice as long ( usually that 's the case ) and requirements change mid-stream ( ditto ) and the hardware/distro changes as well ( ditto-ditto ) It 's finding the right balance folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, unless the uber-coder took twice as long (usually that's the case) and requirements change mid-stream (ditto) and the hardware/distro changes as well (ditto-ditto)It's finding the right balance folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538954</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>kitsunewarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1259748900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An artist isn't paid for their productivity either.  One who can jam out a design and final work in 10 hours gets paid the same as one who does it in 20.  Someone who paints as much as possible every hour of the week can find himself getting paid less than someone who only paints 5 hours a day, 5 days a week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An artist is n't paid for their productivity either .
One who can jam out a design and final work in 10 hours gets paid the same as one who does it in 20 .
Someone who paints as much as possible every hour of the week can find himself getting paid less than someone who only paints 5 hours a day , 5 days a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An artist isn't paid for their productivity either.
One who can jam out a design and final work in 10 hours gets paid the same as one who does it in 20.
Someone who paints as much as possible every hour of the week can find himself getting paid less than someone who only paints 5 hours a day, 5 days a week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538862</id>
	<title>Re:What about the slow workers</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1259748300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The key here is to have a line in your resume, "Saved XYZ company, XXX million dollars by refactoring ZZZ system."
<br> <br>
That will get you noticed and hired by a clueful company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key here is to have a line in your resume , " Saved XYZ company , XXX million dollars by refactoring ZZZ system .
" That will get you noticed and hired by a clueful company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key here is to have a line in your resume, "Saved XYZ company, XXX million dollars by refactoring ZZZ system.
"
 
That will get you noticed and hired by a clueful company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543454</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261666200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The '10x more productive' part is another one of those silly binary inside jokes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The '10x more productive ' part is another one of those silly binary inside jokes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The '10x more productive' part is another one of those silly binary inside jokes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538270</id>
	<title>A good reason pay SHOULDN'T be proportional...</title>
	<author>Beorytis</author>
	<datestamp>1259744580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you haven't seen this TED.com video with Dan Pink on the science of motivation, it's worth a watch:

<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_pink\_on\_motivation.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_pink\_on\_motivation.html</a> [ted.com]

In case you don't want to watch TFV, it could be summarized as: "Using compensation to motivate tasks requiring higher cognition doesn't work.  Behavioral science has understood this for decades, but business isn't listening."</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have n't seen this TED.com video with Dan Pink on the science of motivation , it 's worth a watch : http : //www.ted.com/talks/dan \ _pink \ _on \ _motivation.html [ ted.com ] In case you do n't want to watch TFV , it could be summarized as : " Using compensation to motivate tasks requiring higher cognition does n't work .
Behavioral science has understood this for decades , but business is n't listening .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you haven't seen this TED.com video with Dan Pink on the science of motivation, it's worth a watch:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_pink\_on\_motivation.html [ted.com]

In case you don't want to watch TFV, it could be summarized as: "Using compensation to motivate tasks requiring higher cognition doesn't work.
Behavioral science has understood this for decades, but business isn't listening.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540746</id>
	<title>You just need to admit that you are powerless ...</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1259762040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code, and name the variables: a, aa, aAa, Aa, etc. They can never fire me."</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't care if you go to an AA, aA, or Aa meeting, but I suspect you had better get to one of them, and soon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code , and name the variables : a , aa , aAa , Aa , etc .
They can never fire me .
" I do n't care if you go to an AA , aA , or Aa meeting , but I suspect you had better get to one of them , and soon ... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code, and name the variables: a, aa, aAa, Aa, etc.
They can never fire me.
"I don't care if you go to an AA, aA, or Aa meeting, but I suspect you had better get to one of them, and soon ... ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542928</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1261656360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that in practice is how I work as well. There are times that I'm in the mood for coding and things get done quickly. The other times I am creating (sometimes bad) designs, documenting, handling email, writing test cases (actually, no, I'm in the position I can have this done by other persons) - the other 80\% of the job. I've had to complete a coding job in about 3 weeks that required continuous coding. Fortunately I had a good design in my head and energy left to do it, but I could only pull that off once or twice a year, it just takes too much focus</p><p>First I actively tried to have a single project at a time. After a while I noticed that that is counter-productive. Nowadays I tend to go for 2 to 3. If anywhere possible one of them should be a pet-project, one that I really like. Such a project sounds hard to get, but most of the time you can do something to enable better productivity later on, such as refining project management. That said, I'm trying to be in R&amp;D and I am in standardization - hard requirements for job satisfaction for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that in practice is how I work as well .
There are times that I 'm in the mood for coding and things get done quickly .
The other times I am creating ( sometimes bad ) designs , documenting , handling email , writing test cases ( actually , no , I 'm in the position I can have this done by other persons ) - the other 80 \ % of the job .
I 've had to complete a coding job in about 3 weeks that required continuous coding .
Fortunately I had a good design in my head and energy left to do it , but I could only pull that off once or twice a year , it just takes too much focusFirst I actively tried to have a single project at a time .
After a while I noticed that that is counter-productive .
Nowadays I tend to go for 2 to 3 .
If anywhere possible one of them should be a pet-project , one that I really like .
Such a project sounds hard to get , but most of the time you can do something to enable better productivity later on , such as refining project management .
That said , I 'm trying to be in R&amp;D and I am in standardization - hard requirements for job satisfaction for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that in practice is how I work as well.
There are times that I'm in the mood for coding and things get done quickly.
The other times I am creating (sometimes bad) designs, documenting, handling email, writing test cases (actually, no, I'm in the position I can have this done by other persons) - the other 80\% of the job.
I've had to complete a coding job in about 3 weeks that required continuous coding.
Fortunately I had a good design in my head and energy left to do it, but I could only pull that off once or twice a year, it just takes too much focusFirst I actively tried to have a single project at a time.
After a while I noticed that that is counter-productive.
Nowadays I tend to go for 2 to 3.
If anywhere possible one of them should be a pet-project, one that I really like.
Such a project sounds hard to get, but most of the time you can do something to enable better productivity later on, such as refining project management.
That said, I'm trying to be in R&amp;D and I am in standardization - hard requirements for job satisfaction for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543270</id>
	<title>Re:What about the slow workers</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1261663860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After it was all done, my team got<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...laid off.</p> </div><p>I've always seen that as a good thing. Or at least an inevitable thing. A programmers role is to make themselves (and often, a bunch of other people) redundant.
</p><p>We automate stuff so no-one has to think about how it really works ever again. And if you do it right the first time, there should be little need to change it ever again.
</p><p>The only thing that should keep us employed in the same business is feature creep. Where the business you are working for has improved its efficiency and can now spend more time and money adding new requirements.
</p><p>The other thing that keeps us going is technology and legal changes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After it was all done , my team got .... ...laid off .
I 've always seen that as a good thing .
Or at least an inevitable thing .
A programmers role is to make themselves ( and often , a bunch of other people ) redundant .
We automate stuff so no-one has to think about how it really works ever again .
And if you do it right the first time , there should be little need to change it ever again .
The only thing that should keep us employed in the same business is feature creep .
Where the business you are working for has improved its efficiency and can now spend more time and money adding new requirements .
The other thing that keeps us going is technology and legal changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After it was all done, my team got .... ...laid off.
I've always seen that as a good thing.
Or at least an inevitable thing.
A programmers role is to make themselves (and often, a bunch of other people) redundant.
We automate stuff so no-one has to think about how it really works ever again.
And if you do it right the first time, there should be little need to change it ever again.
The only thing that should keep us employed in the same business is feature creep.
Where the business you are working for has improved its efficiency and can now spend more time and money adding new requirements.
The other thing that keeps us going is technology and legal changes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538918</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1259748600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.</p></div><p>So your uber programmer, when he needs to sort a file, writes a sort program.
<br> <br>
The less uber programmer, just runs:
<br> <br>
sort filename1 &gt; filename2</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me an " uber " programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking " I 've seen this before " , but rather , without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.So your uber programmer , when he needs to sort a file , writes a sort program .
The less uber programmer , just runs : sort filename1 &gt; filename2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.So your uber programmer, when he needs to sort a file, writes a sort program.
The less uber programmer, just runs:
 
sort filename1 &gt; filename2
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540690</id>
	<title>Re:If something is hard to measure...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259761560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I got paid by the line, I could write myself a new house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I got paid by the line , I could write myself a new house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I got paid by the line, I could write myself a new house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538386</id>
	<title>Sounds like the old joke ...</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; <i>"A salesman who sells 10x as much as his peers will be noticed, and compensated accordingly. And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious too."</i> <br> <br> But if you sleep with just \_one\_ sheep<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " A salesman who sells 10x as much as his peers will be noticed , and compensated accordingly .
And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious too .
" But if you sleep with just \ _one \ _ sheep .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "A salesman who sells 10x as much as his peers will be noticed, and compensated accordingly.
And if a bricklayer were 10x more productive than his peers this would be obvious too.
"   But if you sleep with just \_one\_ sheep ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538008</id>
	<title>there are Programmers then here are PROGRAMMERS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Writing a new routine for an  accounts payable system is one thing but.. there are  just so many Gary Kildalls, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Woz and Jobs, or John Carmacks  in the world and these are paid by the universe accordingly.
Of course there are also many Phil Katz out there too..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Writing a new routine for an accounts payable system is one thing but.. there are just so many Gary Kildalls , Bill Gates and Paul Allen , Woz and Jobs , or John Carmacks in the world and these are paid by the universe accordingly .
Of course there are also many Phil Katz out there too. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Writing a new routine for an  accounts payable system is one thing but.. there are  just so many Gary Kildalls, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Woz and Jobs, or John Carmacks  in the world and these are paid by the universe accordingly.
Of course there are also many Phil Katz out there too..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539878</id>
	<title>It takes a good eye</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1259755620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my opinion programming is an art form. There is a lot of nuance to it, and you need to have a trained eye to know what to look for. It would be obvious to people that you cant judge an artist by how many paintings he has done. You just have the talent, or you dont.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion programming is an art form .
There is a lot of nuance to it , and you need to have a trained eye to know what to look for .
It would be obvious to people that you cant judge an artist by how many paintings he has done .
You just have the talent , or you dont .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion programming is an art form.
There is a lot of nuance to it, and you need to have a trained eye to know what to look for.
It would be obvious to people that you cant judge an artist by how many paintings he has done.
You just have the talent, or you dont.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538232</id>
	<title>oh but they are</title>
	<author>maxwells daemon</author>
	<datestamp>1259787540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never seen a bad programmer make more money than a good programmer in the long run.  Unless of course the bad programmer goes into management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never seen a bad programmer make more money than a good programmer in the long run .
Unless of course the bad programmer goes into management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never seen a bad programmer make more money than a good programmer in the long run.
Unless of course the bad programmer goes into management.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541440</id>
	<title>Putz's Law</title>
	<author>Moof123</author>
	<datestamp>1259770620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those most recognized and rewarded in a technical organization are those who work a crisis to gain recognition (i.e. mess up big, and get a raise for fixing it).  Those who avoid crisis are left in the shadows (i.e. a solution won't impress a boss unless it actually gets his balls out of a sling, merely preventing them getting there will get you nowhere).  See also XKCD:  <a href="http://www.xkcd.com/664/" title="xkcd.com">http://www.xkcd.com/664/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those most recognized and rewarded in a technical organization are those who work a crisis to gain recognition ( i.e .
mess up big , and get a raise for fixing it ) .
Those who avoid crisis are left in the shadows ( i.e .
a solution wo n't impress a boss unless it actually gets his balls out of a sling , merely preventing them getting there will get you nowhere ) .
See also XKCD : http : //www.xkcd.com/664/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those most recognized and rewarded in a technical organization are those who work a crisis to gain recognition (i.e.
mess up big, and get a raise for fixing it).
Those who avoid crisis are left in the shadows (i.e.
a solution won't impress a boss unless it actually gets his balls out of a sling, merely preventing them getting there will get you nowhere).
See also XKCD:  http://www.xkcd.com/664/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30555538</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>SuperMonkeyCube</author>
	<datestamp>1261840020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, and scientists that say that they "only want to do research" don't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting grants.  Musicians that just want to play don't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting gigs or a record deal.  If you prefer to leave it up to sales to make it profitable, then you're paying someone else (hence, lowering the overall profit) to explain your beautiful piece of code.  A straight-up salesman may be able to grease your customers better so that the purchase goes smoothly, but I would guess that he can't explain the product was well as the guy who coded it.  <p>There's a lot to be said for dragging one's butt from the basement and interacting with customers, assuming that there's any capability to do so.  Maybe you can't put your lead programmer in front of the customer but maybe one of his direct reports with a high understanding of the program and an ability to speak intelligently to the customer would create a better sales experience. (Of course, that direct report will get promoted sooner that way.) If you make a product that is intended to be sold to other humans in meatspace, some amount of responsibility should be yours to help explain and sell it.  The best part about some interaction between design and customer relations is that it shortens the feedback loop. </p><p> Of course, you have to send someone that isn't going to tell the prospective customer to man up and use the command line every time there's a difficulty implementing a feature.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and scientists that say that they " only want to do research " do n't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting grants .
Musicians that just want to play do n't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting gigs or a record deal .
If you prefer to leave it up to sales to make it profitable , then you 're paying someone else ( hence , lowering the overall profit ) to explain your beautiful piece of code .
A straight-up salesman may be able to grease your customers better so that the purchase goes smoothly , but I would guess that he ca n't explain the product was well as the guy who coded it .
There 's a lot to be said for dragging one 's butt from the basement and interacting with customers , assuming that there 's any capability to do so .
Maybe you ca n't put your lead programmer in front of the customer but maybe one of his direct reports with a high understanding of the program and an ability to speak intelligently to the customer would create a better sales experience .
( Of course , that direct report will get promoted sooner that way .
) If you make a product that is intended to be sold to other humans in meatspace , some amount of responsibility should be yours to help explain and sell it .
The best part about some interaction between design and customer relations is that it shortens the feedback loop .
Of course , you have to send someone that is n't going to tell the prospective customer to man up and use the command line every time there 's a difficulty implementing a feature .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and scientists that say that they "only want to do research" don't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting grants.
Musicians that just want to play don't realize how much salesmanship goes into getting gigs or a record deal.
If you prefer to leave it up to sales to make it profitable, then you're paying someone else (hence, lowering the overall profit) to explain your beautiful piece of code.
A straight-up salesman may be able to grease your customers better so that the purchase goes smoothly, but I would guess that he can't explain the product was well as the guy who coded it.
There's a lot to be said for dragging one's butt from the basement and interacting with customers, assuming that there's any capability to do so.
Maybe you can't put your lead programmer in front of the customer but maybe one of his direct reports with a high understanding of the program and an ability to speak intelligently to the customer would create a better sales experience.
(Of course, that direct report will get promoted sooner that way.
) If you make a product that is intended to be sold to other humans in meatspace, some amount of responsibility should be yours to help explain and sell it.
The best part about some interaction between design and customer relations is that it shortens the feedback loop.
Of course, you have to send someone that isn't going to tell the prospective customer to man up and use the command line every time there's a difficulty implementing a feature.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538568</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>djnewman</author>
	<datestamp>1259746560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be amazed if any product could meet the 99 to 100\% perfect model even without a deadline. In my experience with business, scope creep is the norm and projects are never complete or on time.

IMHO, if someone wants to become a "great" programmer, they need to have good business sense and know when and when NOT to code. I call these people Analysts and that's where most "good" programmers end up. Moderate to marginal programmers end up as Coders, and that's fine as long as they are not the ones developing specifications.

Even the great programmers (analysts) are only that in a vertical market. If I took any programmer and dropped them into an alien development environment they would be terrible for months or years. I think that salary is balanced against the various levels of expertise, ability and business sense that is displayed.

However, it never hurts to blow your own horn, or make a problem, then fix it, in order to get a raise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be amazed if any product could meet the 99 to 100 \ % perfect model even without a deadline .
In my experience with business , scope creep is the norm and projects are never complete or on time .
IMHO , if someone wants to become a " great " programmer , they need to have good business sense and know when and when NOT to code .
I call these people Analysts and that 's where most " good " programmers end up .
Moderate to marginal programmers end up as Coders , and that 's fine as long as they are not the ones developing specifications .
Even the great programmers ( analysts ) are only that in a vertical market .
If I took any programmer and dropped them into an alien development environment they would be terrible for months or years .
I think that salary is balanced against the various levels of expertise , ability and business sense that is displayed .
However , it never hurts to blow your own horn , or make a problem , then fix it , in order to get a raise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be amazed if any product could meet the 99 to 100\% perfect model even without a deadline.
In my experience with business, scope creep is the norm and projects are never complete or on time.
IMHO, if someone wants to become a "great" programmer, they need to have good business sense and know when and when NOT to code.
I call these people Analysts and that's where most "good" programmers end up.
Moderate to marginal programmers end up as Coders, and that's fine as long as they are not the ones developing specifications.
Even the great programmers (analysts) are only that in a vertical market.
If I took any programmer and dropped them into an alien development environment they would be terrible for months or years.
I think that salary is balanced against the various levels of expertise, ability and business sense that is displayed.
However, it never hurts to blow your own horn, or make a problem, then fix it, in order to get a raise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542412</id>
	<title>Wrong; it's programmers who SOLVE PROBLEMS</title>
	<author>CPE1704TKS</author>
	<datestamp>1261686900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worst programmers I've met are the ones who are heads down and program.  They are usually very arrogant and think they are gods.  Case in point, there's a guy I currently work with who is a disaster.  People are in awe of him because he will work until 4am and has improved the performance of our application 100-fold.</p><p>The problem is that during the design phase, he completely disregarded all of our design recommendations and did things his way.  It turned into a complete disaster, with nothing working as it should, deadlocks and complete lack of scalability, etc.  So yes, he worked until 4am to improve things and did improve the performance from the initial disastrous numbers, but it was all his own fault!  As well, because he was so arrogant and stubborn, he ended up producing something that no one wants anymore because the interface is too abstract and hard to use.  Now, our the product is being shut down before it has even launched, because we couldn't convince any consumers to "wait until the next release" to get it to do what they actually want.  All the fellow programmers think he's an asshole, but all of the managers who don't understand what he does will undoubtedly promote him.</p><p>The best programmers are the ones who keep it simple, design things excellently and program it once, with maybe a couple of iterations of performance enhancement.  I've met plenty of brilliant programmers in my time, and these are the key traits that they exhibit.  The "brilliant", nerdy programmers that heads-down program are rarely any better than a smart, easy-going programmer that both works hard and spends more time listening to their customers and making common sense design decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst programmers I 've met are the ones who are heads down and program .
They are usually very arrogant and think they are gods .
Case in point , there 's a guy I currently work with who is a disaster .
People are in awe of him because he will work until 4am and has improved the performance of our application 100-fold.The problem is that during the design phase , he completely disregarded all of our design recommendations and did things his way .
It turned into a complete disaster , with nothing working as it should , deadlocks and complete lack of scalability , etc .
So yes , he worked until 4am to improve things and did improve the performance from the initial disastrous numbers , but it was all his own fault !
As well , because he was so arrogant and stubborn , he ended up producing something that no one wants anymore because the interface is too abstract and hard to use .
Now , our the product is being shut down before it has even launched , because we could n't convince any consumers to " wait until the next release " to get it to do what they actually want .
All the fellow programmers think he 's an asshole , but all of the managers who do n't understand what he does will undoubtedly promote him.The best programmers are the ones who keep it simple , design things excellently and program it once , with maybe a couple of iterations of performance enhancement .
I 've met plenty of brilliant programmers in my time , and these are the key traits that they exhibit .
The " brilliant " , nerdy programmers that heads-down program are rarely any better than a smart , easy-going programmer that both works hard and spends more time listening to their customers and making common sense design decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst programmers I've met are the ones who are heads down and program.
They are usually very arrogant and think they are gods.
Case in point, there's a guy I currently work with who is a disaster.
People are in awe of him because he will work until 4am and has improved the performance of our application 100-fold.The problem is that during the design phase, he completely disregarded all of our design recommendations and did things his way.
It turned into a complete disaster, with nothing working as it should, deadlocks and complete lack of scalability, etc.
So yes, he worked until 4am to improve things and did improve the performance from the initial disastrous numbers, but it was all his own fault!
As well, because he was so arrogant and stubborn, he ended up producing something that no one wants anymore because the interface is too abstract and hard to use.
Now, our the product is being shut down before it has even launched, because we couldn't convince any consumers to "wait until the next release" to get it to do what they actually want.
All the fellow programmers think he's an asshole, but all of the managers who don't understand what he does will undoubtedly promote him.The best programmers are the ones who keep it simple, design things excellently and program it once, with maybe a couple of iterations of performance enhancement.
I've met plenty of brilliant programmers in my time, and these are the key traits that they exhibit.
The "brilliant", nerdy programmers that heads-down program are rarely any better than a smart, easy-going programmer that both works hard and spends more time listening to their customers and making common sense design decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540750</id>
	<title>Re:What about the slow workers</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And he'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad. "</p><p>Only if the other bricklayers don't benefit from it.</p><p>When you can do more work then someone else, including them always pays off in the long run..or in this case the long fall.</p><p>In the bricklayer example, you simple get more money for the team, because if you can lay brick work that much faster, you skills will be an easy sell and be worth more money to whomever is hiring you. Attrition will eventually do away with the other bricklayers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And he 'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad .
" Only if the other bricklayers do n't benefit from it.When you can do more work then someone else , including them always pays off in the long run..or in this case the long fall.In the bricklayer example , you simple get more money for the team , because if you can lay brick work that much faster , you skills will be an easy sell and be worth more money to whomever is hiring you .
Attrition will eventually do away with the other bricklayers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And he'd end up getting shoved off the top of a building by the bricklayers that he made look bad.
"Only if the other bricklayers don't benefit from it.When you can do more work then someone else, including them always pays off in the long run..or in this case the long fall.In the bricklayer example, you simple get more money for the team, because if you can lay brick work that much faster, you skills will be an easy sell and be worth more money to whomever is hiring you.
Attrition will eventually do away with the other bricklayers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538256</id>
	<title>Re:Another contributor to productivity invisibilit</title>
	<author>imp</author>
	<datestamp>1259744460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uber coders also know when to trash old code rather than update it to new standards.  The culling of the herd to fit the available resources if often more important than keeping the sickly and poorly written code alive.  It optimizes resource use for everybody: the code is smaller, less of it has to be maintained, etc.  These skills are often overlooked as well since they are devlishly hard to measure.</p><p>This is absolutely critical for small companies to have.  Otherwise the code grows faster than their ability to keep it up to date.  They need more people doing more work than is necessary.  This can push the small company over the edge of profitability (either there are too few people to do the work needed so sales suffer, or there's too few sales to support all the mouths needed to keep this extra code around).</p><p>Another trait of uber-coders is they have a global view.  This global view often allows then do things much more efficiently because they know exactly the right level to do it.  They don't have to do a lot of extra work "just in case" at the wrong layers.  Poor programmers do the extra work and justify it as being careful, when they are only being wasteful to the project.</p><p>Large companies could benefit from these traits, but the way management is setup makes it difficult to properly measure these skills, reward the teams that practice them and to save the company money (which, in theory should be split between the company and the uber-coders).  Sometimes the skills are recognized outside of the normal set of metrics, but often times they are not.</p><p>finally, if you think you are an uber-coder, it would be in your best interest to also be an uber-communicator.  Not that you have to communicate a lot, but often times the right communications at the right times help more than huge reports that nobody does more than glance at anyway.  The best prose for me often times is cut down by 1/2 from my initial drafts and 3/4 rewritten, but everybody is different.  The uber-communication skills is what will get you noticed, promoted and have raises go your way.  This is especially true if you can make other people more productive by merging the uber-coding and uber-communicating roles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uber coders also know when to trash old code rather than update it to new standards .
The culling of the herd to fit the available resources if often more important than keeping the sickly and poorly written code alive .
It optimizes resource use for everybody : the code is smaller , less of it has to be maintained , etc .
These skills are often overlooked as well since they are devlishly hard to measure.This is absolutely critical for small companies to have .
Otherwise the code grows faster than their ability to keep it up to date .
They need more people doing more work than is necessary .
This can push the small company over the edge of profitability ( either there are too few people to do the work needed so sales suffer , or there 's too few sales to support all the mouths needed to keep this extra code around ) .Another trait of uber-coders is they have a global view .
This global view often allows then do things much more efficiently because they know exactly the right level to do it .
They do n't have to do a lot of extra work " just in case " at the wrong layers .
Poor programmers do the extra work and justify it as being careful , when they are only being wasteful to the project.Large companies could benefit from these traits , but the way management is setup makes it difficult to properly measure these skills , reward the teams that practice them and to save the company money ( which , in theory should be split between the company and the uber-coders ) .
Sometimes the skills are recognized outside of the normal set of metrics , but often times they are not.finally , if you think you are an uber-coder , it would be in your best interest to also be an uber-communicator .
Not that you have to communicate a lot , but often times the right communications at the right times help more than huge reports that nobody does more than glance at anyway .
The best prose for me often times is cut down by 1/2 from my initial drafts and 3/4 rewritten , but everybody is different .
The uber-communication skills is what will get you noticed , promoted and have raises go your way .
This is especially true if you can make other people more productive by merging the uber-coding and uber-communicating roles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uber coders also know when to trash old code rather than update it to new standards.
The culling of the herd to fit the available resources if often more important than keeping the sickly and poorly written code alive.
It optimizes resource use for everybody: the code is smaller, less of it has to be maintained, etc.
These skills are often overlooked as well since they are devlishly hard to measure.This is absolutely critical for small companies to have.
Otherwise the code grows faster than their ability to keep it up to date.
They need more people doing more work than is necessary.
This can push the small company over the edge of profitability (either there are too few people to do the work needed so sales suffer, or there's too few sales to support all the mouths needed to keep this extra code around).Another trait of uber-coders is they have a global view.
This global view often allows then do things much more efficiently because they know exactly the right level to do it.
They don't have to do a lot of extra work "just in case" at the wrong layers.
Poor programmers do the extra work and justify it as being careful, when they are only being wasteful to the project.Large companies could benefit from these traits, but the way management is setup makes it difficult to properly measure these skills, reward the teams that practice them and to save the company money (which, in theory should be split between the company and the uber-coders).
Sometimes the skills are recognized outside of the normal set of metrics, but often times they are not.finally, if you think you are an uber-coder, it would be in your best interest to also be an uber-communicator.
Not that you have to communicate a lot, but often times the right communications at the right times help more than huge reports that nobody does more than glance at anyway.
The best prose for me often times is cut down by 1/2 from my initial drafts and 3/4 rewritten, but everybody is different.
The uber-communication skills is what will get you noticed, promoted and have raises go your way.
This is especially true if you can make other people more productive by merging the uber-coding and uber-communicating roles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30547420</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1261653780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The 10x more productive number (and I've seen it quoted as 100x more productive) comes from the observation that a good coder will do the task, produce working software and move on. The mediocre coder will do the task, produce working software (slightly less quickly than the good coder), and spends the rest of his career hunting down bugs and otherwise keeping the p.o.s. running. Maintenance, that's where the large factors comes into play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is , maybe it is n't .
The 10x more productive number ( and I 've seen it quoted as 100x more productive ) comes from the observation that a good coder will do the task , produce working software and move on .
The mediocre coder will do the task , produce working software ( slightly less quickly than the good coder ) , and spends the rest of his career hunting down bugs and otherwise keeping the p.o.s .
running. Maintenance , that 's where the large factors comes into play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
The 10x more productive number (and I've seen it quoted as 100x more productive) comes from the observation that a good coder will do the task, produce working software and move on.
The mediocre coder will do the task, produce working software (slightly less quickly than the good coder), and spends the rest of his career hunting down bugs and otherwise keeping the p.o.s.
running. Maintenance, that's where the large factors comes into play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541450</id>
	<title>Re:If something is hard to measure...</title>
	<author>flayzernax</author>
	<datestamp>1259770860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Epic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540788</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259762460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you have there is someone who is probably suffering from arrogance of ignorance. Implementing and designing something without thinking about it is folly.</p><p>What you are think of is a file full of reusable classes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you have there is someone who is probably suffering from arrogance of ignorance .
Implementing and designing something without thinking about it is folly.What you are think of is a file full of reusable classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you have there is someone who is probably suffering from arrogance of ignorance.
Implementing and designing something without thinking about it is folly.What you are think of is a file full of reusable classes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916</id>
	<title>As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259785620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programming is usually team work and as such kind of hard to measure compared to salesman who just pulls for himself. Another thing is that coders aren't usually that good at expressing themself, so it may not be obvious who is being more productive than others.</p><p>And how do you measure that productivity? Is it the amount of code you write? What if its bad code.. Is it the quality of code? What if that shows up as less productive.. No one notices unless you make it visible and show your boss or developer that you're the man.</p><p>But being awesome coder and making upper level see it won't get you 10x salary. It might get you a better salary, but at that point you should probably aim for developer position or boss level, because that will happen eventually.</p><p>I know a person who used to run a application company. There was a coder who worked as such for some years, but he also took more important stuff to handle in the company. His boss always told how good coder he is and definitely noticed him over the others working there. Later he became the boss running that company, when the old one stepped down and only owned the company anymore.</p><p>But want to just work as an average coder? Expect average salary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programming is usually team work and as such kind of hard to measure compared to salesman who just pulls for himself .
Another thing is that coders are n't usually that good at expressing themself , so it may not be obvious who is being more productive than others.And how do you measure that productivity ?
Is it the amount of code you write ?
What if its bad code.. Is it the quality of code ?
What if that shows up as less productive.. No one notices unless you make it visible and show your boss or developer that you 're the man.But being awesome coder and making upper level see it wo n't get you 10x salary .
It might get you a better salary , but at that point you should probably aim for developer position or boss level , because that will happen eventually.I know a person who used to run a application company .
There was a coder who worked as such for some years , but he also took more important stuff to handle in the company .
His boss always told how good coder he is and definitely noticed him over the others working there .
Later he became the boss running that company , when the old one stepped down and only owned the company anymore.But want to just work as an average coder ?
Expect average salary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programming is usually team work and as such kind of hard to measure compared to salesman who just pulls for himself.
Another thing is that coders aren't usually that good at expressing themself, so it may not be obvious who is being more productive than others.And how do you measure that productivity?
Is it the amount of code you write?
What if its bad code.. Is it the quality of code?
What if that shows up as less productive.. No one notices unless you make it visible and show your boss or developer that you're the man.But being awesome coder and making upper level see it won't get you 10x salary.
It might get you a better salary, but at that point you should probably aim for developer position or boss level, because that will happen eventually.I know a person who used to run a application company.
There was a coder who worked as such for some years, but he also took more important stuff to handle in the company.
His boss always told how good coder he is and definitely noticed him over the others working there.
Later he became the boss running that company, when the old one stepped down and only owned the company anymore.But want to just work as an average coder?
Expect average salary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538508</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code, and name the variables: a, aa, aAa, Aa, etc.  They can never fire me.</p></div><p>Hey, Intron, good to hear from you again. Seriously, we are really sorry we never sent you your last check after we fired you (your code had a bug in it which corrupted our terminated employee database beyond repair so we didn't have your address anymore).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code , and name the variables : a , aa , aAa , Aa , etc .
They can never fire me.Hey , Intron , good to hear from you again .
Seriously , we are really sorry we never sent you your last check after we fired you ( your code had a bug in it which corrupted our terminated employee database beyond repair so we did n't have your address anymore ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I always leave lots of bugs in the code, and name the variables: a, aa, aAa, Aa, etc.
They can never fire me.Hey, Intron, good to hear from you again.
Seriously, we are really sorry we never sent you your last check after we fired you (your code had a bug in it which corrupted our terminated employee database beyond repair so we didn't have your address anymore).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539384</id>
	<title>Re:Value, labor and the fallacy of mixing the two</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1259751900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An experienced company (plumbing, programming, convention booths) is probably going to be able to do things faster and smoothly than a company with less experience. Some craftsmen actually pipeline or batch their work to reduce cost (a potter might use a furnace when four or more projects need baking. An experienced programmer might have his/her own API's, while a novice might have to write them from scratch. Thus it would be impossible to for the economist to measure everything in terms of pure production time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An experienced company ( plumbing , programming , convention booths ) is probably going to be able to do things faster and smoothly than a company with less experience .
Some craftsmen actually pipeline or batch their work to reduce cost ( a potter might use a furnace when four or more projects need baking .
An experienced programmer might have his/her own API 's , while a novice might have to write them from scratch .
Thus it would be impossible to for the economist to measure everything in terms of pure production time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An experienced company (plumbing, programming, convention booths) is probably going to be able to do things faster and smoothly than a company with less experience.
Some craftsmen actually pipeline or batch their work to reduce cost (a potter might use a furnace when four or more projects need baking.
An experienced programmer might have his/her own API's, while a novice might have to write them from scratch.
Thus it would be impossible to for the economist to measure everything in terms of pure production time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539370</id>
	<title>You don't know if programmers are...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259751840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...compensated in proportion to their productivity because you cannot measure their productivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...compensated in proportion to their productivity because you can not measure their productivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...compensated in proportion to their productivity because you cannot measure their productivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541962</id>
	<title>Re:there are Programmers then here are PROGRAMMERS</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1259778600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Writing a new routine for an  accounts payable system is one thing but.. there are  just so many Gary Kildalls, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Woz and Jobs, or John Carmacks  in the world and these are paid by the universe accordingly.
Of course there are also many Phil Katz out there too..</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Writing a new routine for an accounts payable system is one thing but.. there are just so many Gary Kildalls , Bill Gates and Paul Allen , Woz and Jobs , or John Carmacks in the world and these are paid by the universe accordingly .
Of course there are also many Phil Katz out there too. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Writing a new routine for an  accounts payable system is one thing but.. there are  just so many Gary Kildalls, Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Woz and Jobs, or John Carmacks  in the world and these are paid by the universe accordingly.
Of course there are also many Phil Katz out there too..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539022</id>
	<title>Now I KnNow What To Say</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1259749380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...someone who stares quietly into space and then says 'Hmm. I think I've seen something like this before.'"</p></div><p>Finally!  Now I know what to say when I'm caught spacing out at work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...someone who stares quietly into space and then says 'Hmm .
I think I 've seen something like this before. ' " Finally !
Now I know what to say when I 'm caught spacing out at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...someone who stares quietly into space and then says 'Hmm.
I think I've seen something like this before.'"Finally!
Now I know what to say when I'm caught spacing out at work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538104</id>
	<title>Re:Another contributor to productivity invisibilit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. I notice it around this office as well, we have sections of a project that are horribly managed, horribly coded, and buggy as hell. Yet the coders working on that part of the project are consistently recognized and rewarded because they are putting in SOOO many hours working on stuff, yet those people that just write code that works and doesn't need to be re-written get no recognition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I notice it around this office as well , we have sections of a project that are horribly managed , horribly coded , and buggy as hell .
Yet the coders working on that part of the project are consistently recognized and rewarded because they are putting in SOOO many hours working on stuff , yet those people that just write code that works and does n't need to be re-written get no recognition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I notice it around this office as well, we have sections of a project that are horribly managed, horribly coded, and buggy as hell.
Yet the coders working on that part of the project are consistently recognized and rewarded because they are putting in SOOO many hours working on stuff, yet those people that just write code that works and doesn't need to be re-written get no recognition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538664</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1259747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad I'm not the only one.  Well, for me it's writing not coding, but same process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad I 'm not the only one .
Well , for me it 's writing not coding , but same process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad I'm not the only one.
Well, for me it's writing not coding, but same process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538730</id>
	<title>From the we know it exists but can't prove it dept</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1259747460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The basic problem, Cook explains, is that extreme programmer productivity may not be obvious."</p><p>The basic problem is that extreme programmer productivity is a myth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The basic problem , Cook explains , is that extreme programmer productivity may not be obvious .
" The basic problem is that extreme programmer productivity is a myth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The basic problem, Cook explains, is that extreme programmer productivity may not be obvious.
"The basic problem is that extreme programmer productivity is a myth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541348</id>
	<title>Re:If something is hard to measure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259769000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Aristocrats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Aristocrats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Aristocrats</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30552516</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1261734840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoosh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoosh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoosh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543538</id>
	<title>brick laying is like xml, 1 error and no payment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261667280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thats why you go to school to become a bricklayer, because youre not a bricklayer unless you can finish the job perfect</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thats why you go to school to become a bricklayer , because youre not a bricklayer unless you can finish the job perfect</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thats why you go to school to become a bricklayer, because youre not a bricklayer unless you can finish the job perfect</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538448</id>
	<title>The 90/10 Rule</title>
	<author>manlygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you John D. Cook!!  I think you hit that right on the head.  Writing a lot of sloppy code (or insanely terse code for that matter)  is MUCH worse in the long run then thinking about it a bit and writing good solid, well documented (i.e. Self documenting) code.
One of my first big coding jobs was for the best boss I've ever had.  He was not an ubergeek.  In fact, he was an Agriculture major from Texas A&amp;M.  He had the idea that code productivity was like building widgets; x widgets will be built in y days at the rate of x/y.  Now I educated him a little bit and told him in advance that it would take me 90\% of my time to build the engine that the rest of the code would use and then in the remaining 10\% of my time, the rest of the functionality would be done.  Though he didn't know me too well, a fellow programmer whom he did know (and who wrote code by the bucket load) convinced him to let me try it my way.

Everyday he would come in and ask for a "percentage done".  I would tell him what I had worked on but also reminded him that it wouldn't look like much progress.  To make a long story short, he just about lost it waiting for me to get the 10\% done as I had said would get done in the first 90\% of the time I had to do it.  But I delivered just as I said and built a most useful product for him.  I went from "10\%" done (in terms of functionality and lines of code) to complete in one week (this was a several month project).  Because of the way I had built my engine, I was also able to accommodate several additional feature requests that I received when I was working on the first 10\%, and which would not have been able to be built at all if I had done it his way.  I never had trouble with him trusting me after that and I didn't let him down.

Of course this was many years ago and probably wouldn't work with today's Agile methods too well.  But the point carries that automation is basically a front loaded investment and there is a balance between risk mitigation and long term viability.  Version 1.0 might take me longer to engineer but by the time we've gotten to 2.0 I've caught up with you and by 3.0 you can't even see my dust trail.  Its a luxury I don't always get (at least not up front) but I work pretty hard to educate my management and there's nothing quite as convincing as success... that is if both you and your boss can survive the onslaught of "Get It Done Now".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you John D .
Cook ! ! I think you hit that right on the head .
Writing a lot of sloppy code ( or insanely terse code for that matter ) is MUCH worse in the long run then thinking about it a bit and writing good solid , well documented ( i.e .
Self documenting ) code .
One of my first big coding jobs was for the best boss I 've ever had .
He was not an ubergeek .
In fact , he was an Agriculture major from Texas A&amp;M .
He had the idea that code productivity was like building widgets ; x widgets will be built in y days at the rate of x/y .
Now I educated him a little bit and told him in advance that it would take me 90 \ % of my time to build the engine that the rest of the code would use and then in the remaining 10 \ % of my time , the rest of the functionality would be done .
Though he did n't know me too well , a fellow programmer whom he did know ( and who wrote code by the bucket load ) convinced him to let me try it my way .
Everyday he would come in and ask for a " percentage done " .
I would tell him what I had worked on but also reminded him that it would n't look like much progress .
To make a long story short , he just about lost it waiting for me to get the 10 \ % done as I had said would get done in the first 90 \ % of the time I had to do it .
But I delivered just as I said and built a most useful product for him .
I went from " 10 \ % " done ( in terms of functionality and lines of code ) to complete in one week ( this was a several month project ) .
Because of the way I had built my engine , I was also able to accommodate several additional feature requests that I received when I was working on the first 10 \ % , and which would not have been able to be built at all if I had done it his way .
I never had trouble with him trusting me after that and I did n't let him down .
Of course this was many years ago and probably would n't work with today 's Agile methods too well .
But the point carries that automation is basically a front loaded investment and there is a balance between risk mitigation and long term viability .
Version 1.0 might take me longer to engineer but by the time we 've gotten to 2.0 I 've caught up with you and by 3.0 you ca n't even see my dust trail .
Its a luxury I do n't always get ( at least not up front ) but I work pretty hard to educate my management and there 's nothing quite as convincing as success... that is if both you and your boss can survive the onslaught of " Get It Done Now " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you John D.
Cook!!  I think you hit that right on the head.
Writing a lot of sloppy code (or insanely terse code for that matter)  is MUCH worse in the long run then thinking about it a bit and writing good solid, well documented (i.e.
Self documenting) code.
One of my first big coding jobs was for the best boss I've ever had.
He was not an ubergeek.
In fact, he was an Agriculture major from Texas A&amp;M.
He had the idea that code productivity was like building widgets; x widgets will be built in y days at the rate of x/y.
Now I educated him a little bit and told him in advance that it would take me 90\% of my time to build the engine that the rest of the code would use and then in the remaining 10\% of my time, the rest of the functionality would be done.
Though he didn't know me too well, a fellow programmer whom he did know (and who wrote code by the bucket load) convinced him to let me try it my way.
Everyday he would come in and ask for a "percentage done".
I would tell him what I had worked on but also reminded him that it wouldn't look like much progress.
To make a long story short, he just about lost it waiting for me to get the 10\% done as I had said would get done in the first 90\% of the time I had to do it.
But I delivered just as I said and built a most useful product for him.
I went from "10\%" done (in terms of functionality and lines of code) to complete in one week (this was a several month project).
Because of the way I had built my engine, I was also able to accommodate several additional feature requests that I received when I was working on the first 10\%, and which would not have been able to be built at all if I had done it his way.
I never had trouble with him trusting me after that and I didn't let him down.
Of course this was many years ago and probably wouldn't work with today's Agile methods too well.
But the point carries that automation is basically a front loaded investment and there is a balance between risk mitigation and long term viability.
Version 1.0 might take me longer to engineer but by the time we've gotten to 2.0 I've caught up with you and by 3.0 you can't even see my dust trail.
Its a luxury I don't always get (at least not up front) but I work pretty hard to educate my management and there's nothing quite as convincing as success... that is if both you and your boss can survive the onslaught of "Get It Done Now".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542120</id>
	<title>Food for thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was Principal Engineer at a major software company for 18 years, and my productivity was considered to be superior to almost all the rest of the staff. I got lots of incentive stock options because of my performance. Fortunately I was paid better than most of the staff as well, though I did not survive a large layoff at the end of 2005. To position the company for sale, recently hired "pointy-hair" management decided to off-shore most software development and I was let go because of my "cost". Suckage, given that I was a principal architect of the company's flagship product (which contributed about $90M USD / year in sales), and was the principal and lead developer of the distributed transaction processing framework that was the heart of all the company's leading edge products. I was published in academic books and journals, made major presentations at IEEE and ACM computing conferences, and was considered one of the "leading lights" of real-time transaction processing systems.

In the end, productivity, innovation, quality means squat. The more you cost, the more likely you are to be let go when the economy is tight. Good pay counts, but make sure to keep your marketable skills up-to-date, even if you have to do it on your own dime and time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was Principal Engineer at a major software company for 18 years , and my productivity was considered to be superior to almost all the rest of the staff .
I got lots of incentive stock options because of my performance .
Fortunately I was paid better than most of the staff as well , though I did not survive a large layoff at the end of 2005 .
To position the company for sale , recently hired " pointy-hair " management decided to off-shore most software development and I was let go because of my " cost " .
Suckage , given that I was a principal architect of the company 's flagship product ( which contributed about $ 90M USD / year in sales ) , and was the principal and lead developer of the distributed transaction processing framework that was the heart of all the company 's leading edge products .
I was published in academic books and journals , made major presentations at IEEE and ACM computing conferences , and was considered one of the " leading lights " of real-time transaction processing systems .
In the end , productivity , innovation , quality means squat .
The more you cost , the more likely you are to be let go when the economy is tight .
Good pay counts , but make sure to keep your marketable skills up-to-date , even if you have to do it on your own dime and time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was Principal Engineer at a major software company for 18 years, and my productivity was considered to be superior to almost all the rest of the staff.
I got lots of incentive stock options because of my performance.
Fortunately I was paid better than most of the staff as well, though I did not survive a large layoff at the end of 2005.
To position the company for sale, recently hired "pointy-hair" management decided to off-shore most software development and I was let go because of my "cost".
Suckage, given that I was a principal architect of the company's flagship product (which contributed about $90M USD / year in sales), and was the principal and lead developer of the distributed transaction processing framework that was the heart of all the company's leading edge products.
I was published in academic books and journals, made major presentations at IEEE and ACM computing conferences, and was considered one of the "leading lights" of real-time transaction processing systems.
In the end, productivity, innovation, quality means squat.
The more you cost, the more likely you are to be let go when the economy is tight.
Good pay counts, but make sure to keep your marketable skills up-to-date, even if you have to do it on your own dime and time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538774</id>
	<title>How to measure 0x5f3759df?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In terms of productivity, the code produced by a programmer could be quite small, but yield <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast\_inverse\_square\_root" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">much better results</a> [wikipedia.org] for a problem at hand.  And knowing the limitations of such a method versus an "obvious" solution would be equally important, but not necessarily evident in the resulting code.</p><p>If you can't reliably measure coder productivity, then why would there be a simple correlation between productivity and pay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of productivity , the code produced by a programmer could be quite small , but yield much better results [ wikipedia.org ] for a problem at hand .
And knowing the limitations of such a method versus an " obvious " solution would be equally important , but not necessarily evident in the resulting code.If you ca n't reliably measure coder productivity , then why would there be a simple correlation between productivity and pay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of productivity, the code produced by a programmer could be quite small, but yield much better results [wikipedia.org] for a problem at hand.
And knowing the limitations of such a method versus an "obvious" solution would be equally important, but not necessarily evident in the resulting code.If you can't reliably measure coder productivity, then why would there be a simple correlation between productivity and pay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538170</id>
	<title>People do notice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259787120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I pointed out previously, incompetent programmers require more servers. Their code spends more time not running, requires a larger support infrastructure to deal with the problems created and generally reduces profits all round.</p><p>These days it's difficult to point at a specific individual, but teams are easy. You can see which teams are a group of competent engineers and which are just a clusterfuck[1] of developers.</p><p>[1] the collective noun for developers.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I pointed out previously , incompetent programmers require more servers .
Their code spends more time not running , requires a larger support infrastructure to deal with the problems created and generally reduces profits all round.These days it 's difficult to point at a specific individual , but teams are easy .
You can see which teams are a group of competent engineers and which are just a clusterfuck [ 1 ] of developers .
[ 1 ] the collective noun for developers .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I pointed out previously, incompetent programmers require more servers.
Their code spends more time not running, requires a larger support infrastructure to deal with the problems created and generally reduces profits all round.These days it's difficult to point at a specific individual, but teams are easy.
You can see which teams are a group of competent engineers and which are just a clusterfuck[1] of developers.
[1] the collective noun for developers.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538214</id>
	<title>It's easier to measure it by tasks accomplished</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1259787480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rather than lines of code.  I figured that had been well understood by most people these days.
<br> <br>
It's a big part of the reason Agile has caught on so much...theoretically, all one has to do is measure the effectiveness of a developer in dealing with high priority or tasks assessed as complex, rather than how much code is being produced.  The only gotcha is that you have to avoid the trap of rewarding developers who do lots and lots of simple tasks over developers who take on the complex tasks, but that stuff usually hashes itself out during the scrum planning.  In a waterfall system, you're kind of stuck evaluating developers by how much "stuff" they produce (documentation, code, tests, etc.) instead of quality because you don't keep track of the individual tasks like you would in Agile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than lines of code .
I figured that had been well understood by most people these days .
It 's a big part of the reason Agile has caught on so much...theoretically , all one has to do is measure the effectiveness of a developer in dealing with high priority or tasks assessed as complex , rather than how much code is being produced .
The only gotcha is that you have to avoid the trap of rewarding developers who do lots and lots of simple tasks over developers who take on the complex tasks , but that stuff usually hashes itself out during the scrum planning .
In a waterfall system , you 're kind of stuck evaluating developers by how much " stuff " they produce ( documentation , code , tests , etc .
) instead of quality because you do n't keep track of the individual tasks like you would in Agile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than lines of code.
I figured that had been well understood by most people these days.
It's a big part of the reason Agile has caught on so much...theoretically, all one has to do is measure the effectiveness of a developer in dealing with high priority or tasks assessed as complex, rather than how much code is being produced.
The only gotcha is that you have to avoid the trap of rewarding developers who do lots and lots of simple tasks over developers who take on the complex tasks, but that stuff usually hashes itself out during the scrum planning.
In a waterfall system, you're kind of stuck evaluating developers by how much "stuff" they produce (documentation, code, tests, etc.
) instead of quality because you don't keep track of the individual tasks like you would in Agile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539210</id>
	<title>Small tight code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259750700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best coders I have seen wrote amazingly little code. I am not talking about crazy pointer arithmetic but just way less code than lesser programmers. Often the best programmers also deployed the available resources way better. When all is said and done the best programmers leave code that everyone worships as pure genius that everyone else builds on with ease. A great example was someone who did some great code where they took the bull buy the horns and moved the project into proper multithreading and some crazy memory usage. The server went from using maybe 10Megs per process to a collective 8Gigs spread across many threads. Sounds complex but every programmer took one look at the code and went wow. 20 servers out of 23 previously heavily loaded servers were shut down as unneeded. Even with 50\% client growth every year our next server purchase will probably be in a decade. That super programmer moved on and we just kept building on his code for a long time. Programming and debugging went from a chore to a joy. Anyone could tell which code was new code because it was ugly and complex compared to the simple elegance of the original code. Without a doubt that programmer could replace the 50 pretty good programmers we have on staff now. Plus his code eliminated 3 full time system admins and has resulted in zero downtime in two years, thus avoiding millions in losses over the last and next few years. So what should his pay have been? 5 Million a year?

On a different topic, in my travels I have seen sys admins who ran well oiled machines that were amazing. At the same time I have seen sys admins who weren't properly backing up critical data. Critical as in the company would go bust in the event of a HD failure. In these same companies they had HR, CFO's, and Sales people who were paid multiples of the Admin. These "senior" managem who's screwups would be hard pressed to completely wreck the company usually saw the various computer people as a bit of a joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best coders I have seen wrote amazingly little code .
I am not talking about crazy pointer arithmetic but just way less code than lesser programmers .
Often the best programmers also deployed the available resources way better .
When all is said and done the best programmers leave code that everyone worships as pure genius that everyone else builds on with ease .
A great example was someone who did some great code where they took the bull buy the horns and moved the project into proper multithreading and some crazy memory usage .
The server went from using maybe 10Megs per process to a collective 8Gigs spread across many threads .
Sounds complex but every programmer took one look at the code and went wow .
20 servers out of 23 previously heavily loaded servers were shut down as unneeded .
Even with 50 \ % client growth every year our next server purchase will probably be in a decade .
That super programmer moved on and we just kept building on his code for a long time .
Programming and debugging went from a chore to a joy .
Anyone could tell which code was new code because it was ugly and complex compared to the simple elegance of the original code .
Without a doubt that programmer could replace the 50 pretty good programmers we have on staff now .
Plus his code eliminated 3 full time system admins and has resulted in zero downtime in two years , thus avoiding millions in losses over the last and next few years .
So what should his pay have been ?
5 Million a year ?
On a different topic , in my travels I have seen sys admins who ran well oiled machines that were amazing .
At the same time I have seen sys admins who were n't properly backing up critical data .
Critical as in the company would go bust in the event of a HD failure .
In these same companies they had HR , CFO 's , and Sales people who were paid multiples of the Admin .
These " senior " managem who 's screwups would be hard pressed to completely wreck the company usually saw the various computer people as a bit of a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best coders I have seen wrote amazingly little code.
I am not talking about crazy pointer arithmetic but just way less code than lesser programmers.
Often the best programmers also deployed the available resources way better.
When all is said and done the best programmers leave code that everyone worships as pure genius that everyone else builds on with ease.
A great example was someone who did some great code where they took the bull buy the horns and moved the project into proper multithreading and some crazy memory usage.
The server went from using maybe 10Megs per process to a collective 8Gigs spread across many threads.
Sounds complex but every programmer took one look at the code and went wow.
20 servers out of 23 previously heavily loaded servers were shut down as unneeded.
Even with 50\% client growth every year our next server purchase will probably be in a decade.
That super programmer moved on and we just kept building on his code for a long time.
Programming and debugging went from a chore to a joy.
Anyone could tell which code was new code because it was ugly and complex compared to the simple elegance of the original code.
Without a doubt that programmer could replace the 50 pretty good programmers we have on staff now.
Plus his code eliminated 3 full time system admins and has resulted in zero downtime in two years, thus avoiding millions in losses over the last and next few years.
So what should his pay have been?
5 Million a year?
On a different topic, in my travels I have seen sys admins who ran well oiled machines that were amazing.
At the same time I have seen sys admins who weren't properly backing up critical data.
Critical as in the company would go bust in the event of a HD failure.
In these same companies they had HR, CFO's, and Sales people who were paid multiples of the Admin.
These "senior" managem who's screwups would be hard pressed to completely wreck the company usually saw the various computer people as a bit of a joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538138</id>
	<title>classic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Error 500 - Internal server error<br>An internal server error has occured!<br>Please try again later.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...staring off into space...I've seen this before...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Error 500 - Internal server errorAn internal server error has occured ! Please try again later .
...staring off into space...I 've seen this before.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Error 500 - Internal server errorAn internal server error has occured!Please try again later.
...staring off into space...I've seen this before...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541368</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>clockwise\_music</author>
	<datestamp>1259769420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He also wrote an article about how Exceptions are pointless and a waste of time,<br>
and that we should track "ErrorNumbers" ourselves manually. <br> <br>

He completely ignored the fact that exceptions were developed to solve<br>
the problem of "working out in the stack where the error happened", and when<br>
people pointed that out how ridiculous his solution was he refused to change<br>
his mind. So screw it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He also wrote an article about how Exceptions are pointless and a waste of time , and that we should track " ErrorNumbers " ourselves manually .
He completely ignored the fact that exceptions were developed to solve the problem of " working out in the stack where the error happened " , and when people pointed that out how ridiculous his solution was he refused to change his mind .
So screw it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He also wrote an article about how Exceptions are pointless and a waste of time,
and that we should track "ErrorNumbers" ourselves manually.
He completely ignored the fact that exceptions were developed to solve
the problem of "working out in the stack where the error happened", and when
people pointed that out how ridiculous his solution was he refused to change
his mind.
So screw it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1259786400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; But, code is a product, and expected to be created.  The value is obvious when it's completed, but still worthless to the bean counters until someone in sales sells it to a customer.  The more customers they sell the code to, the more profitable it's become.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The thanks never comes down to the programmers.   When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done.  The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I was told, I have to be able to sell the product.  That's not where I want to be.  I like creating things.  I prefer to leave it up to sales to make it profitable.   Unfortunately, the way most bosses run the show, development will always be a negative cashflow area, and sales will always be positive.  In that, they consider development bad for the company, and forget that without our work, they'd never turn a profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    But , code is a product , and expected to be created .
The value is obvious when it 's completed , but still worthless to the bean counters until someone in sales sells it to a customer .
The more customers they sell the code to , the more profitable it 's become .
    The thanks never comes down to the programmers .
When the product is completed , it 's likely they 'll be let go , since no more work needs to be done .
The sales staff could continue selling it for years , and making a profit .
    I was told , I have to be able to sell the product .
That 's not where I want to be .
I like creating things .
I prefer to leave it up to sales to make it profitable .
Unfortunately , the way most bosses run the show , development will always be a negative cashflow area , and sales will always be positive .
In that , they consider development bad for the company , and forget that without our work , they 'd never turn a profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    But, code is a product, and expected to be created.
The value is obvious when it's completed, but still worthless to the bean counters until someone in sales sells it to a customer.
The more customers they sell the code to, the more profitable it's become.
    The thanks never comes down to the programmers.
When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done.
The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.
    I was told, I have to be able to sell the product.
That's not where I want to be.
I like creating things.
I prefer to leave it up to sales to make it profitable.
Unfortunately, the way most bosses run the show, development will always be a negative cashflow area, and sales will always be positive.
In that, they consider development bad for the company, and forget that without our work, they'd never turn a profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538468</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find if I force myself to do a task, I can usually muddle through it, even without flashes of inspirations from sitting on the can. (Which while seemingly more productive, does take longer than just knuckling under and doing something I don't really want to do.)</p><p>On the other hand, if you just need time to think, I find there's usually enough drudge work to fill a day with mindless tasks that I can still feel productive doing (responding to e-mail, reviewing my bug lists, documenting code, finishing up pet projects), without requiring so much of a commitment that I can't think about what I really want to think about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find if I force myself to do a task , I can usually muddle through it , even without flashes of inspirations from sitting on the can .
( Which while seemingly more productive , does take longer than just knuckling under and doing something I do n't really want to do .
) On the other hand , if you just need time to think , I find there 's usually enough drudge work to fill a day with mindless tasks that I can still feel productive doing ( responding to e-mail , reviewing my bug lists , documenting code , finishing up pet projects ) , without requiring so much of a commitment that I ca n't think about what I really want to think about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find if I force myself to do a task, I can usually muddle through it, even without flashes of inspirations from sitting on the can.
(Which while seemingly more productive, does take longer than just knuckling under and doing something I don't really want to do.
)On the other hand, if you just need time to think, I find there's usually enough drudge work to fill a day with mindless tasks that I can still feel productive doing (responding to e-mail, reviewing my bug lists, documenting code, finishing up pet projects), without requiring so much of a commitment that I can't think about what I really want to think about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543062</id>
	<title>Easy  ... because most managers ...</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1261659300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most managers couldn't be fucked to tell a top programmer from a potted plant.</p><p>This also applies for many technical positions. I've witnessed complete retards having been hired for support or QA positions that were so utterly and obviously incompetent that made me stand speechless for 10 seconds. Really it took a few minutes to find it out, but the manager responsible for them still hadn't figured it out after a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most managers could n't be fucked to tell a top programmer from a potted plant.This also applies for many technical positions .
I 've witnessed complete retards having been hired for support or QA positions that were so utterly and obviously incompetent that made me stand speechless for 10 seconds .
Really it took a few minutes to find it out , but the manager responsible for them still had n't figured it out after a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most managers couldn't be fucked to tell a top programmer from a potted plant.This also applies for many technical positions.
I've witnessed complete retards having been hired for support or QA positions that were so utterly and obviously incompetent that made me stand speechless for 10 seconds.
Really it took a few minutes to find it out, but the manager responsible for them still hadn't figured it out after a month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538536</id>
	<title>Re:Anecdote from folklore.org</title>
	<author>Darth</author>
	<datestamp>1259746260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the sad part of that story is that they asked bill to stop filling out the form instead of acknowledging the pointlessness of the metric and dropping it for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the sad part of that story is that they asked bill to stop filling out the form instead of acknowledging the pointlessness of the metric and dropping it for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the sad part of that story is that they asked bill to stop filling out the form instead of acknowledging the pointlessness of the metric and dropping it for everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30548512</id>
	<title>Its your fault...</title>
	<author>shadoelord</author>
	<datestamp>1261666440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, its your own fault if you don't take the time to exemplify yourself to your superiors.  I've seen plenty of people sit silently on the sideline, complaining about how no one knows what they do (the occasional 'give me back my stapler'), and turning that into a negative atmosphere.  I've tried sticking up for these people in the past, only to be told to mind my own business; and I took that to heart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , its your own fault if you do n't take the time to exemplify yourself to your superiors .
I 've seen plenty of people sit silently on the sideline , complaining about how no one knows what they do ( the occasional 'give me back my stapler ' ) , and turning that into a negative atmosphere .
I 've tried sticking up for these people in the past , only to be told to mind my own business ; and I took that to heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, its your own fault if you don't take the time to exemplify yourself to your superiors.
I've seen plenty of people sit silently on the sideline, complaining about how no one knows what they do (the occasional 'give me back my stapler'), and turning that into a negative atmosphere.
I've tried sticking up for these people in the past, only to be told to mind my own business; and I took that to heart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538780</id>
	<title>Suggest Focus Redirect</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1259747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems clear from this thread that employers generally suck at identifying the most valuable coders.  I' ve heard managers trash coders as a class (as compared to the designers who manage the project).</p><p>Basically, coders are hidden from the world by layers of management.  Often that management cannot competently evaluate their work.  That problem cannot be meaningfully addresssed from within.  Value of a worker can only be determined by reference to the market for similar workers.</p><p>The focus should be on showcasing your capabilities to the 'outside' world, as much as doing good work for your employer.  MBA morons will covet you proportionately to how others covet you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems clear from this thread that employers generally suck at identifying the most valuable coders .
I ' ve heard managers trash coders as a class ( as compared to the designers who manage the project ) .Basically , coders are hidden from the world by layers of management .
Often that management can not competently evaluate their work .
That problem can not be meaningfully addresssed from within .
Value of a worker can only be determined by reference to the market for similar workers.The focus should be on showcasing your capabilities to the 'outside ' world , as much as doing good work for your employer .
MBA morons will covet you proportionately to how others covet you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems clear from this thread that employers generally suck at identifying the most valuable coders.
I' ve heard managers trash coders as a class (as compared to the designers who manage the project).Basically, coders are hidden from the world by layers of management.
Often that management cannot competently evaluate their work.
That problem cannot be meaningfully addresssed from within.
Value of a worker can only be determined by reference to the market for similar workers.The focus should be on showcasing your capabilities to the 'outside' world, as much as doing good work for your employer.
MBA morons will covet you proportionately to how others covet you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539456</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The thanks never comes down to the programmers. When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done. The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.</i></p><p>Actually, this is the way that "creative" professions have generally worked.  Consider the typical sculptor or painter.  Even those that reached a level of fame have usually been paid only once for each creation.  It is then owned by the client, who can resell it and not give the creator any part of the sale.  There are a few countries that have dabbled with royalties for resale, but this is rare, and the royalties are typically small.  The real profit from art goes to the sponsors and investors.</p><p>Authors and musicians have had some small success in getting royalties for their work.  But this is most often "honored in the breach".  It's well known that recording artists don't get any royalties at all, and may lose money, unless the recording sells around 1.5 to 2 million copies.  Before that, all the income goes to the owner of the recording, which is the corporation that produced and marketed it.  Even after a recording reaches the profitable stage, the artist typically gets only a few percent of each sale. The situation is similar with authors, who may be paid a small "advance" before production, but rarely makes a profit until several million copies have been sold.  Most writers have worked for corporations such as newspapers or other periodicals, who pay a salary and claim all income from sales.</p><p>The movie industry has a few showcase stars who have made a small fortune in royalties.  But most actors are "starving artists" who have to work at part-time jobs to get rent and food money. Movies are owned by the producers, not the actors.  The few stars are held out as bait to attract the many workers who will never be stars and will never make a decent living from their creativity.</p><p>Software programmers like to think that they're something new that the world has never seen.  But in reality they are merely creators in a new medium, and they are treated as the commercial world has always treated creative types.  They're workers who can be paid a small salary to produce, and when they produce something that sells, the corporation can claim the profits.  A few stars can be paid some royalties (still only a few percent of sales) and held up as public examples to attract the many workers that the industry needs.</p><p>Don't expect to see this change in your lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thanks never comes down to the programmers .
When the product is completed , it 's likely they 'll be let go , since no more work needs to be done .
The sales staff could continue selling it for years , and making a profit.Actually , this is the way that " creative " professions have generally worked .
Consider the typical sculptor or painter .
Even those that reached a level of fame have usually been paid only once for each creation .
It is then owned by the client , who can resell it and not give the creator any part of the sale .
There are a few countries that have dabbled with royalties for resale , but this is rare , and the royalties are typically small .
The real profit from art goes to the sponsors and investors.Authors and musicians have had some small success in getting royalties for their work .
But this is most often " honored in the breach " .
It 's well known that recording artists do n't get any royalties at all , and may lose money , unless the recording sells around 1.5 to 2 million copies .
Before that , all the income goes to the owner of the recording , which is the corporation that produced and marketed it .
Even after a recording reaches the profitable stage , the artist typically gets only a few percent of each sale .
The situation is similar with authors , who may be paid a small " advance " before production , but rarely makes a profit until several million copies have been sold .
Most writers have worked for corporations such as newspapers or other periodicals , who pay a salary and claim all income from sales.The movie industry has a few showcase stars who have made a small fortune in royalties .
But most actors are " starving artists " who have to work at part-time jobs to get rent and food money .
Movies are owned by the producers , not the actors .
The few stars are held out as bait to attract the many workers who will never be stars and will never make a decent living from their creativity.Software programmers like to think that they 're something new that the world has never seen .
But in reality they are merely creators in a new medium , and they are treated as the commercial world has always treated creative types .
They 're workers who can be paid a small salary to produce , and when they produce something that sells , the corporation can claim the profits .
A few stars can be paid some royalties ( still only a few percent of sales ) and held up as public examples to attract the many workers that the industry needs.Do n't expect to see this change in your lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thanks never comes down to the programmers.
When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done.
The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.Actually, this is the way that "creative" professions have generally worked.
Consider the typical sculptor or painter.
Even those that reached a level of fame have usually been paid only once for each creation.
It is then owned by the client, who can resell it and not give the creator any part of the sale.
There are a few countries that have dabbled with royalties for resale, but this is rare, and the royalties are typically small.
The real profit from art goes to the sponsors and investors.Authors and musicians have had some small success in getting royalties for their work.
But this is most often "honored in the breach".
It's well known that recording artists don't get any royalties at all, and may lose money, unless the recording sells around 1.5 to 2 million copies.
Before that, all the income goes to the owner of the recording, which is the corporation that produced and marketed it.
Even after a recording reaches the profitable stage, the artist typically gets only a few percent of each sale.
The situation is similar with authors, who may be paid a small "advance" before production, but rarely makes a profit until several million copies have been sold.
Most writers have worked for corporations such as newspapers or other periodicals, who pay a salary and claim all income from sales.The movie industry has a few showcase stars who have made a small fortune in royalties.
But most actors are "starving artists" who have to work at part-time jobs to get rent and food money.
Movies are owned by the producers, not the actors.
The few stars are held out as bait to attract the many workers who will never be stars and will never make a decent living from their creativity.Software programmers like to think that they're something new that the world has never seen.
But in reality they are merely creators in a new medium, and they are treated as the commercial world has always treated creative types.
They're workers who can be paid a small salary to produce, and when they produce something that sells, the corporation can claim the profits.
A few stars can be paid some royalties (still only a few percent of sales) and held up as public examples to attract the many workers that the industry needs.Don't expect to see this change in your lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539258</id>
	<title>well thats because</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1259751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>most "Programmers" are M&amp;P grades and not hourly paid</htmltext>
<tokenext>most " Programmers " are M&amp;P grades and not hourly paid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most "Programmers" are M&amp;P grades and not hourly paid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954</id>
	<title>Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259785920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially for organizations that love their metrics.</p><p>With a trucker, it's easy: they drove X miles, had Y accidents, Z fines/tickets, and Q complaints from customers he dropped stuff off.  They'll want to maximize X, and minimize everything else.</p><p>Because a programmer's code doesn't live by itself but is meshed in between those of other programmers most likely along with a bunch of other factors - it's hard for a point haired boss to measure his productivity just by bug count and whether the project gets done.  In that case, it might be best just to have his technically minded supervisors judge members of their team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially for organizations that love their metrics.With a trucker , it 's easy : they drove X miles , had Y accidents , Z fines/tickets , and Q complaints from customers he dropped stuff off .
They 'll want to maximize X , and minimize everything else.Because a programmer 's code does n't live by itself but is meshed in between those of other programmers most likely along with a bunch of other factors - it 's hard for a point haired boss to measure his productivity just by bug count and whether the project gets done .
In that case , it might be best just to have his technically minded supervisors judge members of their team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially for organizations that love their metrics.With a trucker, it's easy: they drove X miles, had Y accidents, Z fines/tickets, and Q complaints from customers he dropped stuff off.
They'll want to maximize X, and minimize everything else.Because a programmer's code doesn't live by itself but is meshed in between those of other programmers most likely along with a bunch of other factors - it's hard for a point haired boss to measure his productivity just by bug count and whether the project gets done.
In that case, it might be best just to have his technically minded supervisors judge members of their team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538870</id>
	<title>have an idea...</title>
	<author>cheap.computer</author>
	<datestamp>1259748360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the pay should be, pay suggested by sloccount x 3</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the pay should be , pay suggested by sloccount x 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the pay should be, pay suggested by sloccount x 3</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539244</id>
	<title>Game theory</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1259750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter if you don't get paid what you're worth, as long as you aren't going to be paid better anywhere else. Because what's your game options, quit and get a different job that sees even less of your value? Go independent and try to bill rates that high? Join a start-up and try to get that much of the total? Quit or take a long vacation and pray they'll miss you enough to take you back on a higher salary? Yeah right.</p><p>A lot of people might know internally what you did, but it's hard to convince outsiders that the projects you did really were that hard and you were that crucial to the solution and your solution was that great. Maybe even your boss knows you're brillant and he's rather fire the whole team and hand the money to you if that was what's needed to make you stay, but it will never come to that. Because who else would pay you that much money? Nobody. I guess maybe if you got some entrepreneurial skills and build the company around yourself it might happen, but that takes a very special kind of people which rarely overlaps with mastering coding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if you do n't get paid what you 're worth , as long as you are n't going to be paid better anywhere else .
Because what 's your game options , quit and get a different job that sees even less of your value ?
Go independent and try to bill rates that high ?
Join a start-up and try to get that much of the total ?
Quit or take a long vacation and pray they 'll miss you enough to take you back on a higher salary ?
Yeah right.A lot of people might know internally what you did , but it 's hard to convince outsiders that the projects you did really were that hard and you were that crucial to the solution and your solution was that great .
Maybe even your boss knows you 're brillant and he 's rather fire the whole team and hand the money to you if that was what 's needed to make you stay , but it will never come to that .
Because who else would pay you that much money ?
Nobody. I guess maybe if you got some entrepreneurial skills and build the company around yourself it might happen , but that takes a very special kind of people which rarely overlaps with mastering coding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if you don't get paid what you're worth, as long as you aren't going to be paid better anywhere else.
Because what's your game options, quit and get a different job that sees even less of your value?
Go independent and try to bill rates that high?
Join a start-up and try to get that much of the total?
Quit or take a long vacation and pray they'll miss you enough to take you back on a higher salary?
Yeah right.A lot of people might know internally what you did, but it's hard to convince outsiders that the projects you did really were that hard and you were that crucial to the solution and your solution was that great.
Maybe even your boss knows you're brillant and he's rather fire the whole team and hand the money to you if that was what's needed to make you stay, but it will never come to that.
Because who else would pay you that much money?
Nobody. I guess maybe if you got some entrepreneurial skills and build the company around yourself it might happen, but that takes a very special kind of people which rarely overlaps with mastering coding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539708</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em> The thanks never comes down to the programmers. When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done. The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.<br></em></p><p>Cry me a river. If a programmer wants lots of money, let him/her make and sell a product or service. It's a free country, and anyone who aspires can make the effort. Even people who aren't "smart" or "productive" can sell vast quantities of crapola for a fortune.</p><p>The way to measure who is consistently the best programmer is to have a long-term competition where the goals are uniform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thanks never comes down to the programmers .
When the product is completed , it 's likely they 'll be let go , since no more work needs to be done .
The sales staff could continue selling it for years , and making a profit.Cry me a river .
If a programmer wants lots of money , let him/her make and sell a product or service .
It 's a free country , and anyone who aspires can make the effort .
Even people who are n't " smart " or " productive " can sell vast quantities of crapola for a fortune.The way to measure who is consistently the best programmer is to have a long-term competition where the goals are uniform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The thanks never comes down to the programmers.
When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done.
The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.Cry me a river.
If a programmer wants lots of money, let him/her make and sell a product or service.
It's a free country, and anyone who aspires can make the effort.
Even people who aren't "smart" or "productive" can sell vast quantities of crapola for a fortune.The way to measure who is consistently the best programmer is to have a long-term competition where the goals are uniform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538712</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>Bobb Sledd</author>
	<datestamp>1259747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I've been there so I know your pain.</p><p>But take heart, there is job nirvana.  I have it.  I have a job where I get to find problems to solve, and there are no deadlines, and very few scopes to cover.  Things are laid out very generally and give me a lot of artistic license to implement how I see fit.  And I'm paid more than anyone I know doing my kind of job.  (I'm actually probably overpaid, but don't tell anyone.)</p><p>But also, the person who supports the product on the telephone will be the same guy who built it.  So I guess it's in my best interest to make it work right the first time, isn't it!</p><p>I've often thought maybe more software shops should use this idea.  Let your engineers support the product they make, and allow them to make live changes to it immediately... your calls will literally go to zero.</p><p>I have built several web-based database engines that are used on a daily basis by several hundred users.  My phone rang maybe 4 or 5 times last week.  Most of the time, it isn't even my problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 've been there so I know your pain.But take heart , there is job nirvana .
I have it .
I have a job where I get to find problems to solve , and there are no deadlines , and very few scopes to cover .
Things are laid out very generally and give me a lot of artistic license to implement how I see fit .
And I 'm paid more than anyone I know doing my kind of job .
( I 'm actually probably overpaid , but do n't tell anyone .
) But also , the person who supports the product on the telephone will be the same guy who built it .
So I guess it 's in my best interest to make it work right the first time , is n't it ! I 've often thought maybe more software shops should use this idea .
Let your engineers support the product they make , and allow them to make live changes to it immediately... your calls will literally go to zero.I have built several web-based database engines that are used on a daily basis by several hundred users .
My phone rang maybe 4 or 5 times last week .
Most of the time , it is n't even my problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I've been there so I know your pain.But take heart, there is job nirvana.
I have it.
I have a job where I get to find problems to solve, and there are no deadlines, and very few scopes to cover.
Things are laid out very generally and give me a lot of artistic license to implement how I see fit.
And I'm paid more than anyone I know doing my kind of job.
(I'm actually probably overpaid, but don't tell anyone.
)But also, the person who supports the product on the telephone will be the same guy who built it.
So I guess it's in my best interest to make it work right the first time, isn't it!I've often thought maybe more software shops should use this idea.
Let your engineers support the product they make, and allow them to make live changes to it immediately... your calls will literally go to zero.I have built several web-based database engines that are used on a daily basis by several hundred users.
My phone rang maybe 4 or 5 times last week.
Most of the time, it isn't even my problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538984</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1259749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seen this described a lot by many other programmers, and often experience it myself, so I'm inclined to assume that it is, in fact, the basic nature of our work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seen this described a lot by many other programmers , and often experience it myself , so I 'm inclined to assume that it is , in fact , the basic nature of our work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seen this described a lot by many other programmers, and often experience it myself, so I'm inclined to assume that it is, in fact, the basic nature of our work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538736</id>
	<title>You know you're there when...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1259747520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...they routinely bring you the problems no one else can solve - and you solve them, or you can reply, "No thanks" (especially for problems you don't want to solve).
<p>
The parenthetical may seem odd, but, for example, I was once asked to "fix" some code that was working correctly, but returning numbers management didn't like.  I said: No thanks. You can't use a context "diff" for SLOC counts and expect the number of adds, deletes, and changes to always match what you expect.  The utility generates the edits needed to alter the code from A to B.  They're usually the most "efficient" list of edits, which isn't always what was done.  Simply changing the counts with a formula isn't the solution.
</p><p>
Yes, sometimes I'm a dick, but it's probably warranted - deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they routinely bring you the problems no one else can solve - and you solve them , or you can reply , " No thanks " ( especially for problems you do n't want to solve ) .
The parenthetical may seem odd , but , for example , I was once asked to " fix " some code that was working correctly , but returning numbers management did n't like .
I said : No thanks .
You ca n't use a context " diff " for SLOC counts and expect the number of adds , deletes , and changes to always match what you expect .
The utility generates the edits needed to alter the code from A to B. They 're usually the most " efficient " list of edits , which is n't always what was done .
Simply changing the counts with a formula is n't the solution .
Yes , sometimes I 'm a dick , but it 's probably warranted - deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they routinely bring you the problems no one else can solve - and you solve them, or you can reply, "No thanks" (especially for problems you don't want to solve).
The parenthetical may seem odd, but, for example, I was once asked to "fix" some code that was working correctly, but returning numbers management didn't like.
I said: No thanks.
You can't use a context "diff" for SLOC counts and expect the number of adds, deletes, and changes to always match what you expect.
The utility generates the edits needed to alter the code from A to B.  They're usually the most "efficient" list of edits, which isn't always what was done.
Simply changing the counts with a formula isn't the solution.
Yes, sometimes I'm a dick, but it's probably warranted - deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539462</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of thanks always stops at sales and their higher ups. Going on that statement this "thanks" never trickles down to anyone else involved in the sales process, the running of the business that the sales people work for, etc.</p><p>It is not strictly a problem (if it is a problem at all) of coders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of thanks always stops at sales and their higher ups .
Going on that statement this " thanks " never trickles down to anyone else involved in the sales process , the running of the business that the sales people work for , etc.It is not strictly a problem ( if it is a problem at all ) of coders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of thanks always stops at sales and their higher ups.
Going on that statement this "thanks" never trickles down to anyone else involved in the sales process, the running of the business that the sales people work for, etc.It is not strictly a problem (if it is a problem at all) of coders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538028</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scrum anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scrum anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scrum anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538482</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>sphix42</author>
	<datestamp>1259745840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That 'hatching period' isn't employed by many coders and the result is a product which isn't thought-through.  I always take time for a nap and an episode of Futurama whenever I get tasked with a new project.  Finding the right solution, using whatever path works best for you, is the primary goal of programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'hatching period ' is n't employed by many coders and the result is a product which is n't thought-through .
I always take time for a nap and an episode of Futurama whenever I get tasked with a new project .
Finding the right solution , using whatever path works best for you , is the primary goal of programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That 'hatching period' isn't employed by many coders and the result is a product which isn't thought-through.
I always take time for a nap and an episode of Futurama whenever I get tasked with a new project.
Finding the right solution, using whatever path works best for you, is the primary goal of programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538252</id>
	<title>Re:Negative LOCs</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1259744460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once I had to de-bug an extremely long script written in awk, that parsed invoices destined for a dot-matrix printer, mostly dividing them into pages.  The text output was not fixed length and the script was not consistently dividing the invoices into correct pages.  The script was over 100 lines.  After a couple of days of studying the code, learning awk along the way, determining exactly what it did, and why, I commented it all out and replaced it with a single call to 'lp'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once I had to de-bug an extremely long script written in awk , that parsed invoices destined for a dot-matrix printer , mostly dividing them into pages .
The text output was not fixed length and the script was not consistently dividing the invoices into correct pages .
The script was over 100 lines .
After a couple of days of studying the code , learning awk along the way , determining exactly what it did , and why , I commented it all out and replaced it with a single call to 'lp' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once I had to de-bug an extremely long script written in awk, that parsed invoices destined for a dot-matrix printer, mostly dividing them into pages.
The text output was not fixed length and the script was not consistently dividing the invoices into correct pages.
The script was over 100 lines.
After a couple of days of studying the code, learning awk along the way, determining exactly what it did, and why, I commented it all out and replaced it with a single call to 'lp'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539404</id>
	<title>Thinking vs doing</title>
	<author>geek2k5</author>
	<datestamp>1259752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an anecdote in the business world about an efficiency expert that did an analysis for a company.  The expert reported to the owner of the company that everything was optimal with the exception of a certain person in an office who appeared to do nothing other than sit in his chair with his feet on his desk, staring off into space.</p><p>The owner of the company mentioned that the person was in that position when he came up with an idea that made the company millions of dollars.</p><p>Sometimes thinking IS doing.</p><p>With regards to the "uber" programmer, is it better to start creating a new algorithm as fast as you can type or to find an existing algorithm that just needs a minor tweak to work?  Starting from scratch means that you have to debug from scratch.  Starting from an existing template that you know about and perhaps wrote means that you have most of the testing done ahead of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an anecdote in the business world about an efficiency expert that did an analysis for a company .
The expert reported to the owner of the company that everything was optimal with the exception of a certain person in an office who appeared to do nothing other than sit in his chair with his feet on his desk , staring off into space.The owner of the company mentioned that the person was in that position when he came up with an idea that made the company millions of dollars.Sometimes thinking IS doing.With regards to the " uber " programmer , is it better to start creating a new algorithm as fast as you can type or to find an existing algorithm that just needs a minor tweak to work ?
Starting from scratch means that you have to debug from scratch .
Starting from an existing template that you know about and perhaps wrote means that you have most of the testing done ahead of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an anecdote in the business world about an efficiency expert that did an analysis for a company.
The expert reported to the owner of the company that everything was optimal with the exception of a certain person in an office who appeared to do nothing other than sit in his chair with his feet on his desk, staring off into space.The owner of the company mentioned that the person was in that position when he came up with an idea that made the company millions of dollars.Sometimes thinking IS doing.With regards to the "uber" programmer, is it better to start creating a new algorithm as fast as you can type or to find an existing algorithm that just needs a minor tweak to work?
Starting from scratch means that you have to debug from scratch.
Starting from an existing template that you know about and perhaps wrote means that you have most of the testing done ahead of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30550728</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1261754340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.  My example wasn't meant to list all the ways that an employee can be helpful in a way that's hard to measure, but just to give an idea of the sort of value that might be hard to measure.  Another thing that occurs to me is you could have an employee that is out-performed by other 99\% of the time, but is the only guy who can really do the job properly that left-over 1\% of the time.  If that 1\% is clutch, then he might be your most valuable employee.
</p><p>So overall me intent was to say that knowing some statistics in not a replacement for knowing your business.  If you want to manage a business, then don't undervalue things like knowing your employees, paying talking to them, paying attention to the work that they're doing, and knowing the details about how they're doing that work.  I don't think that sitting alone in an office somewhere and making decisions based on statistics alone is generally the best way to run a business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
My example was n't meant to list all the ways that an employee can be helpful in a way that 's hard to measure , but just to give an idea of the sort of value that might be hard to measure .
Another thing that occurs to me is you could have an employee that is out-performed by other 99 \ % of the time , but is the only guy who can really do the job properly that left-over 1 \ % of the time .
If that 1 \ % is clutch , then he might be your most valuable employee .
So overall me intent was to say that knowing some statistics in not a replacement for knowing your business .
If you want to manage a business , then do n't undervalue things like knowing your employees , paying talking to them , paying attention to the work that they 're doing , and knowing the details about how they 're doing that work .
I do n't think that sitting alone in an office somewhere and making decisions based on statistics alone is generally the best way to run a business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
My example wasn't meant to list all the ways that an employee can be helpful in a way that's hard to measure, but just to give an idea of the sort of value that might be hard to measure.
Another thing that occurs to me is you could have an employee that is out-performed by other 99\% of the time, but is the only guy who can really do the job properly that left-over 1\% of the time.
If that 1\% is clutch, then he might be your most valuable employee.
So overall me intent was to say that knowing some statistics in not a replacement for knowing your business.
If you want to manage a business, then don't undervalue things like knowing your employees, paying talking to them, paying attention to the work that they're doing, and knowing the details about how they're doing that work.
I don't think that sitting alone in an office somewhere and making decisions based on statistics alone is generally the best way to run a business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539216</id>
	<title>It's called quality</title>
	<author>semargofni</author>
	<datestamp>1259750700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this is a restatement of a completely trivial matter that should not even have been posted here, which is: besides quantity there is also quality!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is a restatement of a completely trivial matter that should not even have been posted here , which is : besides quantity there is also quality !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is a restatement of a completely trivial matter that should not even have been posted here, which is: besides quantity there is also quality!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538426</id>
	<title>Best vs worst disparity even higher</title>
	<author>cruff</author>
	<datestamp>1259745480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the best programmers do not write 10x as many lines of code</p></div><p>I beg to differ, since the worst programmers manage to avoid work by dumping it off on someone else when they are in a position to do so, the best programmers write much more than 10x the lines of code than the worst ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the best programmers do not write 10x as many lines of codeI beg to differ , since the worst programmers manage to avoid work by dumping it off on someone else when they are in a position to do so , the best programmers write much more than 10x the lines of code than the worst ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the best programmers do not write 10x as many lines of codeI beg to differ, since the worst programmers manage to avoid work by dumping it off on someone else when they are in a position to do so, the best programmers write much more than 10x the lines of code than the worst ones.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538598</id>
	<title>Re:I don't even think it's that well-defined.</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1259746800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So am I super productive, or not very productive, or what? I don't know. Realistically, the answer is probably "if you give me the sorts of work I'm good at, I'm great, otherwise I'm sorta mediocre." But I'm not sure how you'd measure that.</p></div></blockquote><p>As much as programmers often hate them, this is where good management comes in.<br>A manager who knows when to apply you to the project and where to put you on a team is going to get the most out of your abilities and you will both benefit.</p><p>Unfortunately, good managers are about as hard to find as good programmers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So am I super productive , or not very productive , or what ?
I do n't know .
Realistically , the answer is probably " if you give me the sorts of work I 'm good at , I 'm great , otherwise I 'm sorta mediocre .
" But I 'm not sure how you 'd measure that.As much as programmers often hate them , this is where good management comes in.A manager who knows when to apply you to the project and where to put you on a team is going to get the most out of your abilities and you will both benefit.Unfortunately , good managers are about as hard to find as good programmers : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So am I super productive, or not very productive, or what?
I don't know.
Realistically, the answer is probably "if you give me the sorts of work I'm good at, I'm great, otherwise I'm sorta mediocre.
" But I'm not sure how you'd measure that.As much as programmers often hate them, this is where good management comes in.A manager who knows when to apply you to the project and where to put you on a team is going to get the most out of your abilities and you will both benefit.Unfortunately, good managers are about as hard to find as good programmers :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538504</id>
	<title>But it is...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1259746020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to throw some names out there:</p><p>Steve Wozniak - Apple I, II - (uber king because he did hardware and software)<br>Bill Gates / Paul Allen - original MS Basic<br>Charles Simonyi - Word, Excel, Multiplan<br>Ellison,Miner,Oats - Oracle<br>Mitch Kapor - Lotus 123<br>Ray Ozzie /  David Woolley - Lotus Notes<br>John Carmack / Michael Abrash - Doom, Quake<br>Linus Torvalds - Linux<br>Mark Andreseen - Netscape</p><p>Most of those people on the above list were just programmers starting out without really all that much but a computer and an idea. Most of them went on to be billionaires.  Below them are another tier of thousands of unnameable programmers that are millionaires, and below them are millions who form the back bone of their departments.</p><p>It's pretty much, you get paid great not to just code, but more importantly, to have great ideas and code them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to throw some names out there : Steve Wozniak - Apple I , II - ( uber king because he did hardware and software ) Bill Gates / Paul Allen - original MS BasicCharles Simonyi - Word , Excel , MultiplanEllison,Miner,Oats - OracleMitch Kapor - Lotus 123Ray Ozzie / David Woolley - Lotus NotesJohn Carmack / Michael Abrash - Doom , QuakeLinus Torvalds - LinuxMark Andreseen - NetscapeMost of those people on the above list were just programmers starting out without really all that much but a computer and an idea .
Most of them went on to be billionaires .
Below them are another tier of thousands of unnameable programmers that are millionaires , and below them are millions who form the back bone of their departments.It 's pretty much , you get paid great not to just code , but more importantly , to have great ideas and code them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to throw some names out there:Steve Wozniak - Apple I, II - (uber king because he did hardware and software)Bill Gates / Paul Allen - original MS BasicCharles Simonyi - Word, Excel, MultiplanEllison,Miner,Oats - OracleMitch Kapor - Lotus 123Ray Ozzie /  David Woolley - Lotus NotesJohn Carmack / Michael Abrash - Doom, QuakeLinus Torvalds - LinuxMark Andreseen - NetscapeMost of those people on the above list were just programmers starting out without really all that much but a computer and an idea.
Most of them went on to be billionaires.
Below them are another tier of thousands of unnameable programmers that are millionaires, and below them are millions who form the back bone of their departments.It's pretty much, you get paid great not to just code, but more importantly, to have great ideas and code them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539428</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1259752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my experience, there are a couple of companies that own certain aspects of accounting and inventory management for automotive dealerships and none of them seem to do any work on adding features or fixing bugs (unless you pay them handsomely for it). And since the auto companies require certain providers to be used for these aspects, there isn't much competition. The two main ones that I've had to deal with seem to be perfectly happy leaving the other be, rather than starting an arms race, they seem to like the lock-in they have right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience , there are a couple of companies that own certain aspects of accounting and inventory management for automotive dealerships and none of them seem to do any work on adding features or fixing bugs ( unless you pay them handsomely for it ) .
And since the auto companies require certain providers to be used for these aspects , there is n't much competition .
The two main ones that I 've had to deal with seem to be perfectly happy leaving the other be , rather than starting an arms race , they seem to like the lock-in they have right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience, there are a couple of companies that own certain aspects of accounting and inventory management for automotive dealerships and none of them seem to do any work on adding features or fixing bugs (unless you pay them handsomely for it).
And since the auto companies require certain providers to be used for these aspects, there isn't much competition.
The two main ones that I've had to deal with seem to be perfectly happy leaving the other be, rather than starting an arms race, they seem to like the lock-in they have right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30566440</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1261916100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Futurama is your muse, I'd hate to be the one to debug your code!</p><p>I kid, I kid, I'm a big fan (of the show and the method).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Futurama is your muse , I 'd hate to be the one to debug your code ! I kid , I kid , I 'm a big fan ( of the show and the method ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Futurama is your muse, I'd hate to be the one to debug your code!I kid, I kid, I'm a big fan (of the show and the method).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543834</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1261669920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the fact that good programming can't easily be measured means that "Computer science" is a contradiction in terms.</p><p>I'm more inclined to consider it an art.</p><p>Engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the fact that good programming ca n't easily be measured means that " Computer science " is a contradiction in terms.I 'm more inclined to consider it an art.Engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the fact that good programming can't easily be measured means that "Computer science" is a contradiction in terms.I'm more inclined to consider it an art.Engineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259744520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done. The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Software that's <i>finished</i> in finite time? (Forever-finished, not just this-release-finished.) <br>
What a concept! Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there? If my organization stopped development for a year or two just to sell the existing stuff, our competitors would soon crush us handily.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the product is completed , it 's likely they 'll be let go , since no more work needs to be done .
The sales staff could continue selling it for years , and making a profit .
Software that 's finished in finite time ?
( Forever-finished , not just this-release-finished .
) What a concept !
Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there ?
If my organization stopped development for a year or two just to sell the existing stuff , our competitors would soon crush us handily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the product is completed, it's likely they'll be let go, since no more work needs to be done.
The sales staff could continue selling it for years, and making a profit.
Software that's finished in finite time?
(Forever-finished, not just this-release-finished.
) 
What a concept!
Exactly what segment of the industry are you working in over there?
If my organization stopped development for a year or two just to sell the existing stuff, our competitors would soon crush us handily.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538528</id>
	<title>A lot of it is due to simple cluelessness..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife got fired from her job at a hospital because she was 'only at 98\% productivity'. What her (clueless) boss didn't realize was that as the first point of contact at her department, (the main) part of her job was sending referrals to the other ten therapists there-essentially feeding THEM most of the business. Can you see why she was only at 98\%? She was carrying 11 therapists including herself. Needless to say, the productivity of THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT dropped by about 50\% within a month after she was gone! Her boss was heard to mutter: "I had no clue that she was doing so much for us".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife got fired from her job at a hospital because she was 'only at 98 \ % productivity' .
What her ( clueless ) boss did n't realize was that as the first point of contact at her department , ( the main ) part of her job was sending referrals to the other ten therapists there-essentially feeding THEM most of the business .
Can you see why she was only at 98 \ % ?
She was carrying 11 therapists including herself .
Needless to say , the productivity of THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT dropped by about 50 \ % within a month after she was gone !
Her boss was heard to mutter : " I had no clue that she was doing so much for us " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife got fired from her job at a hospital because she was 'only at 98\% productivity'.
What her (clueless) boss didn't realize was that as the first point of contact at her department, (the main) part of her job was sending referrals to the other ten therapists there-essentially feeding THEM most of the business.
Can you see why she was only at 98\%?
She was carrying 11 therapists including herself.
Needless to say, the productivity of THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT dropped by about 50\% within a month after she was gone!
Her boss was heard to mutter: "I had no clue that she was doing so much for us".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539586</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1259753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I actually like a lot of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net framework and related architectures myself.  It is a bit bloated, but not too much more so than other frameworks, and does offer a lot to productivity over lower-level constructs.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually like a lot of the .Net framework and related architectures myself .
It is a bit bloated , but not too much more so than other frameworks , and does offer a lot to productivity over lower-level constructs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually like a lot of the .Net framework and related architectures myself.
It is a bit bloated, but not too much more so than other frameworks, and does offer a lot to productivity over lower-level constructs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538114</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1259786820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words, the work of a true programmer is beyond recompense: for citation see <a href="http://www.canonical.org/~kragen/tao-of-programming.html" title="canonical.org" rel="nofollow">The Tao of Programming</a> [canonical.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , the work of a true programmer is beyond recompense : for citation see The Tao of Programming [ canonical.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, the work of a true programmer is beyond recompense: for citation see The Tao of Programming [canonical.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538876</id>
	<title>Primadonna programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this thread is full of those "primadonna programmers", who want to believe they all are so much better than the average. Let me get this straight: I will not hire you or your kind. The good programmers are the ones that provide value for the company. They are professionals, and can be a bit hard to find.</p><p>* Primadonnas whine about choice of language, environment, platform, bloat, speed, coding standards etc. A professional just does the job he is told to do.</p><p>* Professionals understands the business' needs and priorities, and act thereafter. Primadonnas don't.</p><p>* Companies don't fail because of slightly buggy or slow programs. They fail because of bad marketing, time to market or a bad business plan. Code quality is not that important. So the primadonna mad skills are not worth nearly as much as you would like to think.</p><p>* Primadonnas often have a misconception that code is somehow art. Newsflash! It isn't. Coding is just creating classes that fit together to form a product, and real professionals know that.</p><p>* Real professionals don't have any opinions on using others code, letting anyone else change in their code or even abandoning their code. Primadonnas are often territorial of their code, and are reluctant to use code written by others (esp. 3rd parties).</p><p>* Primadonnas often spend time "thinking" (i.e. facebooking, surfing etc) and codes like 25\% of his time and goofing off the rest. A professional comes in, works the day and leaves.</p><p>* I can admit that code written by primadonnas can be well thought through, but code designed by a professional isn't that far after. Apart from the pro churning it out immediately and the primadonna "thinking" about it the whole day first.</p><p>* I also agree that a tie isn't always necessary for programmers. However, a professional often wears one just to show that he is a professional to distinguish himself from the primadonnas, and because he wants to be taken seriously.</p><p>I could go on all night, but you primadonnas around here: stop whining and start behaving like real pro's. You might get promoted that way, get a raise or at least not be the first to be laid off. Get off your high horses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this thread is full of those " primadonna programmers " , who want to believe they all are so much better than the average .
Let me get this straight : I will not hire you or your kind .
The good programmers are the ones that provide value for the company .
They are professionals , and can be a bit hard to find .
* Primadonnas whine about choice of language , environment , platform , bloat , speed , coding standards etc .
A professional just does the job he is told to do .
* Professionals understands the business ' needs and priorities , and act thereafter .
Primadonnas do n't .
* Companies do n't fail because of slightly buggy or slow programs .
They fail because of bad marketing , time to market or a bad business plan .
Code quality is not that important .
So the primadonna mad skills are not worth nearly as much as you would like to think .
* Primadonnas often have a misconception that code is somehow art .
Newsflash ! It is n't .
Coding is just creating classes that fit together to form a product , and real professionals know that .
* Real professionals do n't have any opinions on using others code , letting anyone else change in their code or even abandoning their code .
Primadonnas are often territorial of their code , and are reluctant to use code written by others ( esp .
3rd parties ) .
* Primadonnas often spend time " thinking " ( i.e .
facebooking , surfing etc ) and codes like 25 \ % of his time and goofing off the rest .
A professional comes in , works the day and leaves .
* I can admit that code written by primadonnas can be well thought through , but code designed by a professional is n't that far after .
Apart from the pro churning it out immediately and the primadonna " thinking " about it the whole day first .
* I also agree that a tie is n't always necessary for programmers .
However , a professional often wears one just to show that he is a professional to distinguish himself from the primadonnas , and because he wants to be taken seriously.I could go on all night , but you primadonnas around here : stop whining and start behaving like real pro 's .
You might get promoted that way , get a raise or at least not be the first to be laid off .
Get off your high horses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this thread is full of those "primadonna programmers", who want to believe they all are so much better than the average.
Let me get this straight: I will not hire you or your kind.
The good programmers are the ones that provide value for the company.
They are professionals, and can be a bit hard to find.
* Primadonnas whine about choice of language, environment, platform, bloat, speed, coding standards etc.
A professional just does the job he is told to do.
* Professionals understands the business' needs and priorities, and act thereafter.
Primadonnas don't.
* Companies don't fail because of slightly buggy or slow programs.
They fail because of bad marketing, time to market or a bad business plan.
Code quality is not that important.
So the primadonna mad skills are not worth nearly as much as you would like to think.
* Primadonnas often have a misconception that code is somehow art.
Newsflash! It isn't.
Coding is just creating classes that fit together to form a product, and real professionals know that.
* Real professionals don't have any opinions on using others code, letting anyone else change in their code or even abandoning their code.
Primadonnas are often territorial of their code, and are reluctant to use code written by others (esp.
3rd parties).
* Primadonnas often spend time "thinking" (i.e.
facebooking, surfing etc) and codes like 25\% of his time and goofing off the rest.
A professional comes in, works the day and leaves.
* I can admit that code written by primadonnas can be well thought through, but code designed by a professional isn't that far after.
Apart from the pro churning it out immediately and the primadonna "thinking" about it the whole day first.
* I also agree that a tie isn't always necessary for programmers.
However, a professional often wears one just to show that he is a professional to distinguish himself from the primadonnas, and because he wants to be taken seriously.I could go on all night, but you primadonnas around here: stop whining and start behaving like real pro's.
You might get promoted that way, get a raise or at least not be the first to be laid off.
Get off your high horses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539056</id>
	<title>Can someone please explain this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259749560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to the bean counter on the 6th floor.</p><p>Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to the bean counter on the 6th floor.Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to the bean counter on the 6th floor.Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539746</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1259754480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about programmers 10x more productive than average, but there certainly do exist those 10x LESS productive than average.<br>So yes; there are some programmers 10x more productive than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about programmers 10x more productive than average , but there certainly do exist those 10x LESS productive than average.So yes ; there are some programmers 10x more productive than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about programmers 10x more productive than average, but there certainly do exist those 10x LESS productive than average.So yes; there are some programmers 10x more productive than others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539732</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not "doing nothing", I'm thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; 1. He had his own office, and sometimes he'd put up his feet and stare off into space. He told me that people passing by his office assumed that he was "doing nothing." But, he told me, he wasn't doing "nothing", he was very much doing something: thinking.</p><p>I'll go even further.   I have the privilege of working from home / running my own outfit.</p><p>I frequently simply go to sleep if I feel like it.  For a while I felt guilty about this, but the reality is that I usually only doze for 10 minutes or so and when I wake up I have 5 solutions sitting in my head for what I need to do next.   I'm not sure how or why it works, but I can struggle through a whole afternoon feeling sleepy and doing mediocre work or I can take a 10 minute nap and be a rock star for an hour<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so I do.  I wish this was accepted practice in workplaces because I'm sure productivity would rise overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 1 .
He had his own office , and sometimes he 'd put up his feet and stare off into space .
He told me that people passing by his office assumed that he was " doing nothing .
" But , he told me , he was n't doing " nothing " , he was very much doing something : thinking.I 'll go even further .
I have the privilege of working from home / running my own outfit.I frequently simply go to sleep if I feel like it .
For a while I felt guilty about this , but the reality is that I usually only doze for 10 minutes or so and when I wake up I have 5 solutions sitting in my head for what I need to do next .
I 'm not sure how or why it works , but I can struggle through a whole afternoon feeling sleepy and doing mediocre work or I can take a 10 minute nap and be a rock star for an hour ... so I do .
I wish this was accepted practice in workplaces because I 'm sure productivity would rise overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 1.
He had his own office, and sometimes he'd put up his feet and stare off into space.
He told me that people passing by his office assumed that he was "doing nothing.
" But, he told me, he wasn't doing "nothing", he was very much doing something: thinking.I'll go even further.
I have the privilege of working from home / running my own outfit.I frequently simply go to sleep if I feel like it.
For a while I felt guilty about this, but the reality is that I usually only doze for 10 minutes or so and when I wake up I have 5 solutions sitting in my head for what I need to do next.
I'm not sure how or why it works, but I can struggle through a whole afternoon feeling sleepy and doing mediocre work or I can take a 10 minute nap and be a rock star for an hour ... so I do.
I wish this was accepted practice in workplaces because I'm sure productivity would rise overall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</id>
	<title>Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>mswhippingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259787360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.
<br> <br>
It's as if the solution, no matter how complex, is already assembled in his brain and it's just a matter of spitting it out to a file as quickly as his fingers can move. It's not so much the recollection of a some prior scenario, as it is the seamless integration of numerous previously experienced scenarios as well as novel algorithms into a new cohesive algorithm that sets an "uber" programmer apart from the run of the mill code monkey. In my experience, these type of folks are few a far between.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me an " uber " programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking " I 've seen this before " , but rather , without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type .
It 's as if the solution , no matter how complex , is already assembled in his brain and it 's just a matter of spitting it out to a file as quickly as his fingers can move .
It 's not so much the recollection of a some prior scenario , as it is the seamless integration of numerous previously experienced scenarios as well as novel algorithms into a new cohesive algorithm that sets an " uber " programmer apart from the run of the mill code monkey .
In my experience , these type of folks are few a far between .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me an "uber" programmer is one who does NOT stare quietly into space thinking "I've seen this before", but rather, without pausing to take a breath implements the algorithm as fast as he can type.
It's as if the solution, no matter how complex, is already assembled in his brain and it's just a matter of spitting it out to a file as quickly as his fingers can move.
It's not so much the recollection of a some prior scenario, as it is the seamless integration of numerous previously experienced scenarios as well as novel algorithms into a new cohesive algorithm that sets an "uber" programmer apart from the run of the mill code monkey.
In my experience, these type of folks are few a far between.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539672</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm. I think I've... are you kidding me??????</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1259753940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And when he's implemented it as fast as he can type, you get to do all sorts of extra work that would be omitted if you just used the existing one that the other guy had already seen.</p><p>That's the point; people who go rushing off to make new stuff when they don't have to aren't necessarily all that useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And when he 's implemented it as fast as he can type , you get to do all sorts of extra work that would be omitted if you just used the existing one that the other guy had already seen.That 's the point ; people who go rushing off to make new stuff when they do n't have to are n't necessarily all that useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when he's implemented it as fast as he can type, you get to do all sorts of extra work that would be omitted if you just used the existing one that the other guy had already seen.That's the point; people who go rushing off to make new stuff when they don't have to aren't necessarily all that useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538200</id>
	<title>Why can't it be done?</title>
	<author>asadodetira</author>
	<datestamp>1259787360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me there a good productivity indicator would be the time needed to achieve a desired functionality.
For some applications the quality of the code could be measured in terms of the computational expense of the code (does is take too much time/resouces to run).
Something harder to measure would be the maintainability. For this one could follow standardized guidelines to produce a more or less readable code.
Still there always will be intangible aspects, such as the team work previously mentioned, or coding with the goal of future interoperability.

A good coder will solve a problem fast, create code that makes efficeint use time and memory and is maintainable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me there a good productivity indicator would be the time needed to achieve a desired functionality .
For some applications the quality of the code could be measured in terms of the computational expense of the code ( does is take too much time/resouces to run ) .
Something harder to measure would be the maintainability .
For this one could follow standardized guidelines to produce a more or less readable code .
Still there always will be intangible aspects , such as the team work previously mentioned , or coding with the goal of future interoperability .
A good coder will solve a problem fast , create code that makes efficeint use time and memory and is maintainable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me there a good productivity indicator would be the time needed to achieve a desired functionality.
For some applications the quality of the code could be measured in terms of the computational expense of the code (does is take too much time/resouces to run).
Something harder to measure would be the maintainability.
For this one could follow standardized guidelines to produce a more or less readable code.
Still there always will be intangible aspects, such as the team work previously mentioned, or coding with the goal of future interoperability.
A good coder will solve a problem fast, create code that makes efficeint use time and memory and is maintainable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538296</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1259744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm. Methinks you misjudge the work of a trucker. A trucker tends to be (in fact has to be) a highly tech-savvy person with an aptitude for maintaining a very high level of concentration for long periods of time.<br> <br>
Even if you never use it in your employment, I would suggest that the time and expense of learning to drive a seriously heavy truck would be well spent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
Methinks you misjudge the work of a trucker .
A trucker tends to be ( in fact has to be ) a highly tech-savvy person with an aptitude for maintaining a very high level of concentration for long periods of time .
Even if you never use it in your employment , I would suggest that the time and expense of learning to drive a seriously heavy truck would be well spent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
Methinks you misjudge the work of a trucker.
A trucker tends to be (in fact has to be) a highly tech-savvy person with an aptitude for maintaining a very high level of concentration for long periods of time.
Even if you never use it in your employment, I would suggest that the time and expense of learning to drive a seriously heavy truck would be well spent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538966</id>
	<title>Re:This has been known for some time.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, those FAQs work for OS programming, science apps and client standalone apps.
<br>
<br>
<br>
For today's webapps, real-time apps, mission critical apps, distributed apps, and anything that has a launch date, that is <i>a real launch date and schedule</i>: e.g. physical date (rocket, power plant, military strike) , network app launch (lots of nodes, requires timing) or one that requires you to launch or else you find a new job), those faqs don't apply anymore.
<br>
<br>
The only rule in software development is that <i>there are no rules</i> or FAQs--software development and its participants <b>evolve</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , those FAQs work for OS programming , science apps and client standalone apps .
For today 's webapps , real-time apps , mission critical apps , distributed apps , and anything that has a launch date , that is a real launch date and schedule : e.g .
physical date ( rocket , power plant , military strike ) , network app launch ( lots of nodes , requires timing ) or one that requires you to launch or else you find a new job ) , those faqs do n't apply anymore .
The only rule in software development is that there are no rules or FAQs--software development and its participants evolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, those FAQs work for OS programming, science apps and client standalone apps.
For today's webapps, real-time apps, mission critical apps, distributed apps, and anything that has a launch date, that is a real launch date and schedule: e.g.
physical date (rocket, power plant, military strike) , network app launch (lots of nodes, requires timing) or one that requires you to launch or else you find a new job), those faqs don't apply anymore.
The only rule in software development is that there are no rules or FAQs--software development and its participants evolve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538680</id>
	<title>Re:I don't even think it's that well-defined.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm great at swooping in when there's problems and fixing the crap out of them. The rest of the time I'm just 'meh', and when I don't have a deadline I have trouble getting anything productive done at all.</p><p>It helps when a lot of people at your company aren't very technical, so you can automate something they've been doing manually and they look at you like you've just performed a miracle. I got a 20 step process down to a 3-step process by simply doing steps 2-19 through a database query instead of dozens of error-prone Excel operations.</p><p>Anyway, I work for a company that either recognizes my value, or I suck-up enough to get noticed, as I'm doing very well pay-wise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm great at swooping in when there 's problems and fixing the crap out of them .
The rest of the time I 'm just 'meh ' , and when I do n't have a deadline I have trouble getting anything productive done at all.It helps when a lot of people at your company are n't very technical , so you can automate something they 've been doing manually and they look at you like you 've just performed a miracle .
I got a 20 step process down to a 3-step process by simply doing steps 2-19 through a database query instead of dozens of error-prone Excel operations.Anyway , I work for a company that either recognizes my value , or I suck-up enough to get noticed , as I 'm doing very well pay-wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm great at swooping in when there's problems and fixing the crap out of them.
The rest of the time I'm just 'meh', and when I don't have a deadline I have trouble getting anything productive done at all.It helps when a lot of people at your company aren't very technical, so you can automate something they've been doing manually and they look at you like you've just performed a miracle.
I got a 20 step process down to a 3-step process by simply doing steps 2-19 through a database query instead of dozens of error-prone Excel operations.Anyway, I work for a company that either recognizes my value, or I suck-up enough to get noticed, as I'm doing very well pay-wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540696</id>
	<title>That is one phase of programming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259761560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find that programs grow and shrink periodically. Features are added in the growth phase, then the experience of writing that code and seeing how it works in detail provides the insight to generalize it and reduce the amount of special cases, which causes the code to shrink. Generalizing code feels productive and is a very important aspect of code maintenance, but it usually doesn't contribute features, which is what non-programmers see as the real improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that programs grow and shrink periodically .
Features are added in the growth phase , then the experience of writing that code and seeing how it works in detail provides the insight to generalize it and reduce the amount of special cases , which causes the code to shrink .
Generalizing code feels productive and is a very important aspect of code maintenance , but it usually does n't contribute features , which is what non-programmers see as the real improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that programs grow and shrink periodically.
Features are added in the growth phase, then the experience of writing that code and seeing how it works in detail provides the insight to generalize it and reduce the amount of special cases, which causes the code to shrink.
Generalizing code feels productive and is a very important aspect of code maintenance, but it usually doesn't contribute features, which is what non-programmers see as the real improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538364</id>
	<title>Quotas in code are as stupid as in factories!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programmers cannot be measured by any simple metric -- this is true. It's been debated ad nauseam for years.</p><p>Still, I don't see why the hell people are trying. Quotas and flat numbers measuring simply by "production" are always stupid things in the long run, just as they were in factories.</p><p>In software, they'll cause the same problems that they did at brick and mortar factories before TQM principles were established -- people fearing the data and fudging it in desperation. If this is counted by, say, lines of code produced, you had better believe it will be written in the strangest manner possible in spite of defects. But with any quota/by objective system in place, no teamwork will take place -- they'll all be concerned about their own numbers or even hurting others. No one will experiment or come up with ideas and find any process improvements.</p><p>And the person who actually does a good job in realstic terms may not compare to someone who skewed the numbers objectively to feed their kids. This will not give them any pride in their workmanship and will be a serious demotivator, if not burning them out entirely from cynicism about their profession.</p><p>What's the alternative? Judge the programmers based on quality. Have the team define what quality code is, both what's good and what's bad, and attempt to try to find ways to measure that. All of that's going to be in the eye of the beholder and specific to an organization, as not all programming projects are the same. This is all part of greater total quality management principles, but...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers can not be measured by any simple metric -- this is true .
It 's been debated ad nauseam for years.Still , I do n't see why the hell people are trying .
Quotas and flat numbers measuring simply by " production " are always stupid things in the long run , just as they were in factories.In software , they 'll cause the same problems that they did at brick and mortar factories before TQM principles were established -- people fearing the data and fudging it in desperation .
If this is counted by , say , lines of code produced , you had better believe it will be written in the strangest manner possible in spite of defects .
But with any quota/by objective system in place , no teamwork will take place -- they 'll all be concerned about their own numbers or even hurting others .
No one will experiment or come up with ideas and find any process improvements.And the person who actually does a good job in realstic terms may not compare to someone who skewed the numbers objectively to feed their kids .
This will not give them any pride in their workmanship and will be a serious demotivator , if not burning them out entirely from cynicism about their profession.What 's the alternative ?
Judge the programmers based on quality .
Have the team define what quality code is , both what 's good and what 's bad , and attempt to try to find ways to measure that .
All of that 's going to be in the eye of the beholder and specific to an organization , as not all programming projects are the same .
This is all part of greater total quality management principles , but.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers cannot be measured by any simple metric -- this is true.
It's been debated ad nauseam for years.Still, I don't see why the hell people are trying.
Quotas and flat numbers measuring simply by "production" are always stupid things in the long run, just as they were in factories.In software, they'll cause the same problems that they did at brick and mortar factories before TQM principles were established -- people fearing the data and fudging it in desperation.
If this is counted by, say, lines of code produced, you had better believe it will be written in the strangest manner possible in spite of defects.
But with any quota/by objective system in place, no teamwork will take place -- they'll all be concerned about their own numbers or even hurting others.
No one will experiment or come up with ideas and find any process improvements.And the person who actually does a good job in realstic terms may not compare to someone who skewed the numbers objectively to feed their kids.
This will not give them any pride in their workmanship and will be a serious demotivator, if not burning them out entirely from cynicism about their profession.What's the alternative?
Judge the programmers based on quality.
Have the team define what quality code is, both what's good and what's bad, and attempt to try to find ways to measure that.
All of that's going to be in the eye of the beholder and specific to an organization, as not all programming projects are the same.
This is all part of greater total quality management principles, but...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538210</id>
	<title>Great Article!</title>
	<author>SparafucileMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259787420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, wait, it wasn't an article. It was a 2 paragraph blog post that someone crapped out with some random anecdote and zero facts, figures, or research.</p><p>I don't know why<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. still surprises me with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , wait , it was n't an article .
It was a 2 paragraph blog post that someone crapped out with some random anecdote and zero facts , figures , or research.I do n't know why / .
still surprises me with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, wait, it wasn't an article.
It was a 2 paragraph blog post that someone crapped out with some random anecdote and zero facts, figures, or research.I don't know why /.
still surprises me with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541378</id>
	<title>Re:Precisely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259769540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto. What you are taking about is the 'creative' process. Most body shop programmers don't do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto .
What you are taking about is the 'creative ' process .
Most body shop programmers do n't do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto.
What you are taking about is the 'creative' process.
Most body shop programmers don't do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538464</id>
	<title>Hello.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright gentlemen, I'm in a bit of a bind. You see, I had some time here in my cubicle where my boss and co-workers were out to lunch. After already eaten a huge burrito I felt the need to "break wind." Figuring that it'd be courteous to do so along I let her rip. Well, now my co-workers and boss are back in the office. And now I think I might have accidentally shat myself.</p><p> I'm pretty sure I feel the warm stream of feces running down my leg as I'm now typing this. So what am I to do? I'm pretty positive that my co-workers can smell what's going on, judging by the stench. The bathroom is way down the hall past my boss' office. If he stops me while I'm walking by I fear that he will immediately know what's going on as well. Heck, even if I make it to the bathroom I don't have a change of clothes and my pants are practically stained all the way through...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright gentlemen , I 'm in a bit of a bind .
You see , I had some time here in my cubicle where my boss and co-workers were out to lunch .
After already eaten a huge burrito I felt the need to " break wind .
" Figuring that it 'd be courteous to do so along I let her rip .
Well , now my co-workers and boss are back in the office .
And now I think I might have accidentally shat myself .
I 'm pretty sure I feel the warm stream of feces running down my leg as I 'm now typing this .
So what am I to do ?
I 'm pretty positive that my co-workers can smell what 's going on , judging by the stench .
The bathroom is way down the hall past my boss ' office .
If he stops me while I 'm walking by I fear that he will immediately know what 's going on as well .
Heck , even if I make it to the bathroom I do n't have a change of clothes and my pants are practically stained all the way through.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright gentlemen, I'm in a bit of a bind.
You see, I had some time here in my cubicle where my boss and co-workers were out to lunch.
After already eaten a huge burrito I felt the need to "break wind.
" Figuring that it'd be courteous to do so along I let her rip.
Well, now my co-workers and boss are back in the office.
And now I think I might have accidentally shat myself.
I'm pretty sure I feel the warm stream of feces running down my leg as I'm now typing this.
So what am I to do?
I'm pretty positive that my co-workers can smell what's going on, judging by the stench.
The bathroom is way down the hall past my boss' office.
If he stops me while I'm walking by I fear that he will immediately know what's going on as well.
Heck, even if I make it to the bathroom I don't have a change of clothes and my pants are practically stained all the way through...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539520</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not "doing nothing", I'm thinking</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1259752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The key is to <a href="http://dilbert.com/fast/2005-09-23" title="dilbert.com">grimace so they know you're working</a> [dilbert.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key is to grimace so they know you 're working [ dilbert.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key is to grimace so they know you're working [dilbert.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541102</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>stillnotelf</author>
	<datestamp>1259765880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of my coworkers wrote code which included classes "SS" and "SSs".  We had a lot of fun yelling at him for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my coworkers wrote code which included classes " SS " and " SSs " .
We had a lot of fun yelling at him for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my coworkers wrote code which included classes "SS" and "SSs".
We had a lot of fun yelling at him for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538450</id>
	<title>Economics!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UH...becuase the salary depends on supply and demand! DUH!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UH...becuase the salary depends on supply and demand !
DUH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UH...becuase the salary depends on supply and demand!
DUH!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540464</id>
	<title>Re:IQ</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1259759760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever try to jump a chasm in 2 hops?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever try to jump a chasm in 2 hops ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever try to jump a chasm in 2 hops?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538488</id>
	<title>Good Coders Talk Business</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1259745900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The really good coders are the ones that can talk the talk to the business then translate that to something the rest of the team can use.  They have vision and have design skills. A good coder just doesn't start writing things.  They think about the problems, think about the solutions.  They know when to apply the large sledgehammer to a problem and when to apply a small Ball Pein Hammer.  They inspire confidence with the business and the developers.  A good coder knows why Architects suck, but has the skills that are most sought after in an Architect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The really good coders are the ones that can talk the talk to the business then translate that to something the rest of the team can use .
They have vision and have design skills .
A good coder just does n't start writing things .
They think about the problems , think about the solutions .
They know when to apply the large sledgehammer to a problem and when to apply a small Ball Pein Hammer .
They inspire confidence with the business and the developers .
A good coder knows why Architects suck , but has the skills that are most sought after in an Architect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really good coders are the ones that can talk the talk to the business then translate that to something the rest of the team can use.
They have vision and have design skills.
A good coder just doesn't start writing things.
They think about the problems, think about the solutions.
They know when to apply the large sledgehammer to a problem and when to apply a small Ball Pein Hammer.
They inspire confidence with the business and the developers.
A good coder knows why Architects suck, but has the skills that are most sought after in an Architect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537964</id>
	<title>This has been known for some time.</title>
	<author>MarchHare</author>
	<datestamp>1259786040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, for instance, section 2 (Productivity) of the <a href="http://www.seebs.net/faqs/hacker.html" title="seebs.net" rel="nofollow">Hacker FAQ</a> [seebs.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , for instance , section 2 ( Productivity ) of the Hacker FAQ [ seebs.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, for instance, section 2 (Productivity) of the Hacker FAQ [seebs.net].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538258</id>
	<title>Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation</title>
	<author>toppavak</author>
	<datestamp>1259744520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its been <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan\_pink\_on\_motivation.html" title="ted.com">well known</a> [ted.com] for a while that financial motivation for creative work does not result in increased productivity or quality of work. Trying to incentivize coders to be more productive is often counterproductive since they'll be motivated to just hammer out something that works rather than spending a few moments actually thinking about the problem and coming up with an efficient solution that will be better for the codebase in the long run. Trying to reward individual coders based on some arbitrary measure of productivity will never properly reward the right coder nor produce the highest quality of code possible. Using subjective judgement by technical peers rather than objective measures cooked up by HR, providing comfortable and respectful working conditions and encouraging the exploration of the intellectual and creative sides of coding are probably some of the best steps one can take to help good coders produce great code. If you provide the right environment, you have a good chance of attracting a lot of great talent even if you don't offer the best pay in the market because having a job where you're intellectually challenged and your expertise is valued (and listened to!) can be worth a lot more to a good programmer than an extra few grand a year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its been well known [ ted.com ] for a while that financial motivation for creative work does not result in increased productivity or quality of work .
Trying to incentivize coders to be more productive is often counterproductive since they 'll be motivated to just hammer out something that works rather than spending a few moments actually thinking about the problem and coming up with an efficient solution that will be better for the codebase in the long run .
Trying to reward individual coders based on some arbitrary measure of productivity will never properly reward the right coder nor produce the highest quality of code possible .
Using subjective judgement by technical peers rather than objective measures cooked up by HR , providing comfortable and respectful working conditions and encouraging the exploration of the intellectual and creative sides of coding are probably some of the best steps one can take to help good coders produce great code .
If you provide the right environment , you have a good chance of attracting a lot of great talent even if you do n't offer the best pay in the market because having a job where you 're intellectually challenged and your expertise is valued ( and listened to !
) can be worth a lot more to a good programmer than an extra few grand a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its been well known [ted.com] for a while that financial motivation for creative work does not result in increased productivity or quality of work.
Trying to incentivize coders to be more productive is often counterproductive since they'll be motivated to just hammer out something that works rather than spending a few moments actually thinking about the problem and coming up with an efficient solution that will be better for the codebase in the long run.
Trying to reward individual coders based on some arbitrary measure of productivity will never properly reward the right coder nor produce the highest quality of code possible.
Using subjective judgement by technical peers rather than objective measures cooked up by HR, providing comfortable and respectful working conditions and encouraging the exploration of the intellectual and creative sides of coding are probably some of the best steps one can take to help good coders produce great code.
If you provide the right environment, you have a good chance of attracting a lot of great talent even if you don't offer the best pay in the market because having a job where you're intellectually challenged and your expertise is valued (and listened to!
) can be worth a lot more to a good programmer than an extra few grand a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539568</id>
	<title>Tell this to the guys in India</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only my client would've known that progress is not measured by lines of code.  Instead they use a team from India to write their product, which has 100x more lines of code than it should have, and I'm stuck here cleaning up the mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only my client would 've known that progress is not measured by lines of code .
Instead they use a team from India to write their product , which has 100x more lines of code than it should have , and I 'm stuck here cleaning up the mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only my client would've known that progress is not measured by lines of code.
Instead they use a team from India to write their product, which has 100x more lines of code than it should have, and I'm stuck here cleaning up the mess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974</id>
	<title>Another contributor to productivity invisibility .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The uber-coder's code works the first time - it sits there silently and invisibly working.
</p><p>
Meanwhile, everyone is looking at the hard work and long hours being put in by the guy who's code needs lots of help.  He gets the notice, not the guy who did it right.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The uber-coder 's code works the first time - it sits there silently and invisibly working .
Meanwhile , everyone is looking at the hard work and long hours being put in by the guy who 's code needs lots of help .
He gets the notice , not the guy who did it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The uber-coder's code works the first time - it sits there silently and invisibly working.
Meanwhile, everyone is looking at the hard work and long hours being put in by the guy who's code needs lots of help.
He gets the notice, not the guy who did it right.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538312</id>
	<title>I'm not "doing nothing", I'm thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259744820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dad was a programmer for the Star Tribune, back in the seventies and eighties.</p><p>Two things he said stick in my mind.</p><p>1. He had his own office, and sometimes he'd put up his feet and stare off into space. He told me that people passing by his office assumed that he was "doing nothing." But, he told me, he wasn't doing "nothing", he was very much doing something: <em>thinking</em>.</p><p>2. When he got, say, a directive from On High that he must "write a new program for the secretaries", the first thing he did was go and sit down with the secretaries, ask them about their work, and stick around for a while to actually watch them work. He called this the "going native" phase (he took his degree in anthropology). If he'd started coding on the basis of the directive from On High, the end result would be something the secretaries didn't need and wouldn't use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dad was a programmer for the Star Tribune , back in the seventies and eighties.Two things he said stick in my mind.1 .
He had his own office , and sometimes he 'd put up his feet and stare off into space .
He told me that people passing by his office assumed that he was " doing nothing .
" But , he told me , he was n't doing " nothing " , he was very much doing something : thinking.2 .
When he got , say , a directive from On High that he must " write a new program for the secretaries " , the first thing he did was go and sit down with the secretaries , ask them about their work , and stick around for a while to actually watch them work .
He called this the " going native " phase ( he took his degree in anthropology ) .
If he 'd started coding on the basis of the directive from On High , the end result would be something the secretaries did n't need and would n't use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dad was a programmer for the Star Tribune, back in the seventies and eighties.Two things he said stick in my mind.1.
He had his own office, and sometimes he'd put up his feet and stare off into space.
He told me that people passing by his office assumed that he was "doing nothing.
" But, he told me, he wasn't doing "nothing", he was very much doing something: thinking.2.
When he got, say, a directive from On High that he must "write a new program for the secretaries", the first thing he did was go and sit down with the secretaries, ask them about their work, and stick around for a while to actually watch them work.
He called this the "going native" phase (he took his degree in anthropology).
If he'd started coding on the basis of the directive from On High, the end result would be something the secretaries didn't need and wouldn't use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539386</id>
	<title>Re:there are Programmers then here are PROGRAMMERS</title>
	<author>orasio</author>
	<datestamp>1259751960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jobs not a good programmer. Gates not a great programmer.<br>To be filthy rich you need something else, talent to get filthy rich, or maybe if you start filthy rich it can also help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs not a good programmer .
Gates not a great programmer.To be filthy rich you need something else , talent to get filthy rich , or maybe if you start filthy rich it can also help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs not a good programmer.
Gates not a great programmer.To be filthy rich you need something else, talent to get filthy rich, or maybe if you start filthy rich it can also help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539264</id>
	<title>Is this a problem?</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1259751060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a contractor it works out pretty well.  Quote a month, finish in a week, show the client normal milestones.  Wait for feedback, rinse-repeat.  Let the client be the one that pushes deadlines.<br>There's no shame in being efficient, just don't lie and say you're tracking by the hour when you're really invoicing your quoted total to accomplish a project.  Good clients are happy to pay exactly what they expect to pay.  Hourly comes with maintenance.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a contractor it works out pretty well .
Quote a month , finish in a week , show the client normal milestones .
Wait for feedback , rinse-repeat .
Let the client be the one that pushes deadlines.There 's no shame in being efficient , just do n't lie and say you 're tracking by the hour when you 're really invoicing your quoted total to accomplish a project .
Good clients are happy to pay exactly what they expect to pay .
Hourly comes with maintenance .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a contractor it works out pretty well.
Quote a month, finish in a week, show the client normal milestones.
Wait for feedback, rinse-repeat.
Let the client be the one that pushes deadlines.There's no shame in being efficient, just don't lie and say you're tracking by the hour when you're really invoicing your quoted total to accomplish a project.
Good clients are happy to pay exactly what they expect to pay.
Hourly comes with maintenance.
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542082</id>
	<title>Re:If something is hard to measure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or a lawyer per law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a lawyer per law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a lawyer per law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538832</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1259748120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the vast majority of programing is within companies, developing applications and tool chains that are only used within that company.  It's always seen as a cost, unless proven to help.  However a single complaint/bug is seen as offsetting the full value of a man-month of work in most places.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the vast majority of programing is within companies , developing applications and tool chains that are only used within that company .
It 's always seen as a cost , unless proven to help .
However a single complaint/bug is seen as offsetting the full value of a man-month of work in most places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the vast majority of programing is within companies, developing applications and tool chains that are only used within that company.
It's always seen as a cost, unless proven to help.
However a single complaint/bug is seen as offsetting the full value of a man-month of work in most places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538326</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259744880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>'Hmm. I think I've seen something like this before.'"</i> I say that a lot when sitting in front of my computer... usually when there is pr0n displayed on the screen!</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Hmm .
I think I 've seen something like this before .
' " I say that a lot when sitting in front of my computer... usually when there is pr0n displayed on the screen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Hmm.
I think I've seen something like this before.
'" I say that a lot when sitting in front of my computer... usually when there is pr0n displayed on the screen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538336</id>
	<title>You're all on the wrong track entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with any pricing that hasn't been interfered with or regulated in some way, the reason that programmer A, who is 10x as productive as programmer B, does not earn 10x as much is that <i>it doesn't take 10x as much to get him to work.</i> In other words, it has nothing to do with relative value. Most of the comments here are about the perception of productivity and the lack of or need for hard numbers. <i>But they won't change anything</i>. Pricing is, as always, determined by supply and demand. <i>Enormous</i> demand would be required to push a great programmer's salary to 10x what it is today.</p><p>As proof that it's not about perception or measurement, consider a sales position. Does a salesperson who is 10x as effective as average make 10x the salary? Nope. They might make 2-3x the salary of their less effective counterparts in the same position, but that's it. Employees don't get paid in direct proportion to their value, because all businesses everywhere want to retain a lot of that value for themselves. This means that company B isn't hiring the uber-salesman away, not if it takes a massive salary. Demand of that magnitude just doesn't arise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with any pricing that has n't been interfered with or regulated in some way , the reason that programmer A , who is 10x as productive as programmer B , does not earn 10x as much is that it does n't take 10x as much to get him to work .
In other words , it has nothing to do with relative value .
Most of the comments here are about the perception of productivity and the lack of or need for hard numbers .
But they wo n't change anything .
Pricing is , as always , determined by supply and demand .
Enormous demand would be required to push a great programmer 's salary to 10x what it is today.As proof that it 's not about perception or measurement , consider a sales position .
Does a salesperson who is 10x as effective as average make 10x the salary ?
Nope. They might make 2-3x the salary of their less effective counterparts in the same position , but that 's it .
Employees do n't get paid in direct proportion to their value , because all businesses everywhere want to retain a lot of that value for themselves .
This means that company B is n't hiring the uber-salesman away , not if it takes a massive salary .
Demand of that magnitude just does n't arise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with any pricing that hasn't been interfered with or regulated in some way, the reason that programmer A, who is 10x as productive as programmer B, does not earn 10x as much is that it doesn't take 10x as much to get him to work.
In other words, it has nothing to do with relative value.
Most of the comments here are about the perception of productivity and the lack of or need for hard numbers.
But they won't change anything.
Pricing is, as always, determined by supply and demand.
Enormous demand would be required to push a great programmer's salary to 10x what it is today.As proof that it's not about perception or measurement, consider a sales position.
Does a salesperson who is 10x as effective as average make 10x the salary?
Nope. They might make 2-3x the salary of their less effective counterparts in the same position, but that's it.
Employees don't get paid in direct proportion to their value, because all businesses everywhere want to retain a lot of that value for themselves.
This means that company B isn't hiring the uber-salesman away, not if it takes a massive salary.
Demand of that magnitude just doesn't arise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541792</id>
	<title>Business Problem</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1259775900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A productive programmer is one who solves the business problem at hand.</p><p>An excellent programmer understands the problem, and helps the organization solve it in the most efficient manner possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A productive programmer is one who solves the business problem at hand.An excellent programmer understands the problem , and helps the organization solve it in the most efficient manner possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A productive programmer is one who solves the business problem at hand.An excellent programmer understands the problem, and helps the organization solve it in the most efficient manner possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538278</id>
	<title>How do you measure bricklayer productivity?</title>
	<author>line-bundle</author>
	<datestamp>1259744640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does it mean for a bricklayer to be 10x productive? How many bricks they lay per hour? Are they straight etc etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>The main problem is that there is no good/easy metric to measure productivity (except perhaps for salesmen)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it mean for a bricklayer to be 10x productive ?
How many bricks they lay per hour ?
Are they straight etc etc ....The main problem is that there is no good/easy metric to measure productivity ( except perhaps for salesmen )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it mean for a bricklayer to be 10x productive?
How many bricks they lay per hour?
Are they straight etc etc ....The main problem is that there is no good/easy metric to measure productivity (except perhaps for salesmen)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541918</id>
	<title>Productivity does not apply here...</title>
	<author>Onan's Salad</author>
	<datestamp>1259777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This topic is terrifying!

Productivity only makes sense when you have a static goal, which is not the case in any working environment I've encountered.  Instead, I've found that I'm paid for tolerance.  When a manager asks me to deliver X, but a marketer suddenly promises Y, I get paid for not killing both of them.  When my manager asks me to make 1 + 1 = 3, and a marketer promises a client that 1 + 1 = 6.255, I get paid for not going on a murderous rampage.

Seriously - if it weren't for these wages - programmers would have a worse reputation than postal workers.  We get paid to be driven crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This topic is terrifying !
Productivity only makes sense when you have a static goal , which is not the case in any working environment I 've encountered .
Instead , I 've found that I 'm paid for tolerance .
When a manager asks me to deliver X , but a marketer suddenly promises Y , I get paid for not killing both of them .
When my manager asks me to make 1 + 1 = 3 , and a marketer promises a client that 1 + 1 = 6.255 , I get paid for not going on a murderous rampage .
Seriously - if it were n't for these wages - programmers would have a worse reputation than postal workers .
We get paid to be driven crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This topic is terrifying!
Productivity only makes sense when you have a static goal, which is not the case in any working environment I've encountered.
Instead, I've found that I'm paid for tolerance.
When a manager asks me to deliver X, but a marketer suddenly promises Y, I get paid for not killing both of them.
When my manager asks me to make 1 + 1 = 3, and a marketer promises a client that 1 + 1 = 6.255, I get paid for not going on a murderous rampage.
Seriously - if it weren't for these wages - programmers would have a worse reputation than postal workers.
We get paid to be driven crazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538948</id>
	<title>Crap Submission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some rambling thoughts on some dude's unprofessional, horribly designed blog is NOT a valid source for submission content.  Get this crap off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some rambling thoughts on some dude 's unprofessional , horribly designed blog is NOT a valid source for submission content .
Get this crap off /.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some rambling thoughts on some dude's unprofessional, horribly designed blog is NOT a valid source for submission content.
Get this crap off /...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538000</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the recap of the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the recap of the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the recap of the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539324</id>
	<title>I must be the most effective programmer then.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259751600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't written any code since I was born!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't written any code since I was born !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't written any code since I was born!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537982</id>
	<title>Negative LOCs</title>
	<author>arcmay</author>
	<datestamp>1259786160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of my most "productive" days have resulted in a net deletion of many hundreds of lines of code. Mostly this is cleaning horrendous cut &amp; paste jobs, and refactoring APIs to dump buggy, unnecessary functionality. That one day of effort probably saves weeks of bug-hunting and spaghetti-unwinding further down the road. It would appear to be negatively productive by any naive metric.</p><p>I'd argue coder pay should be proportional to productivity. It's just that there's no shortcuts to measuring a coder's productivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of my most " productive " days have resulted in a net deletion of many hundreds of lines of code .
Mostly this is cleaning horrendous cut &amp; paste jobs , and refactoring APIs to dump buggy , unnecessary functionality .
That one day of effort probably saves weeks of bug-hunting and spaghetti-unwinding further down the road .
It would appear to be negatively productive by any naive metric.I 'd argue coder pay should be proportional to productivity .
It 's just that there 's no shortcuts to measuring a coder 's productivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of my most "productive" days have resulted in a net deletion of many hundreds of lines of code.
Mostly this is cleaning horrendous cut &amp; paste jobs, and refactoring APIs to dump buggy, unnecessary functionality.
That one day of effort probably saves weeks of bug-hunting and spaghetti-unwinding further down the road.
It would appear to be negatively productive by any naive metric.I'd argue coder pay should be proportional to productivity.
It's just that there's no shortcuts to measuring a coder's productivity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538752</id>
	<title>But the product is never finished</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1259747580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The value is obvious when it's completed</p></div><p>And that's the problem. Would you pay the programmer when the first drop is made to production, when the beta test has been completed or when all the bugs have been found and fixed. One could argue that it's only when that third consdition has been met, that a program is <b>really</b> completed - and as we know, it never happens.
</p><p>
It's obviously the worst suggestion in the world to pay up when the program is released (either to prod or to customers) as that produces a perverse incentive to slap it together as quickly as possible - with no heed for the number of mistakes it contains.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The value is obvious when it 's completedAnd that 's the problem .
Would you pay the programmer when the first drop is made to production , when the beta test has been completed or when all the bugs have been found and fixed .
One could argue that it 's only when that third consdition has been met , that a program is really completed - and as we know , it never happens .
It 's obviously the worst suggestion in the world to pay up when the program is released ( either to prod or to customers ) as that produces a perverse incentive to slap it together as quickly as possible - with no heed for the number of mistakes it contains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value is obvious when it's completedAnd that's the problem.
Would you pay the programmer when the first drop is made to production, when the beta test has been completed or when all the bugs have been found and fixed.
One could argue that it's only when that third consdition has been met, that a program is really completed - and as we know, it never happens.
It's obviously the worst suggestion in the world to pay up when the program is released (either to prod or to customers) as that produces a perverse incentive to slap it together as quickly as possible - with no heed for the number of mistakes it contains.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539962</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1259756040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This release finish is usually enough for most companies.  They can thin the herd of most of their developers, keep just a very few on, and when it's time to start on the next release, hire on fresh meat for a fraction of the cost of the last crew.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There used to be company loyalty.  That's long since gone.  Back in the day, if you had a job and were good at it, you would continue the job for the rest of your life, get yearly raises and promotions.  Now, once they can terminate you and bring on someone cheaper, they will.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; How many people have you worked with for more than 10 years?  If you've had the same job for that long, I'd be willing to bet the number could be counted on one hand.  My record is 8 years.  I could tell you everyone who had come and gone.  There was some loyalty there, but they shifted their view and started looking at the cost over loyalty.  "Oh, we can get rid of this senior guy with 8 years experience with us, for someone who doesn't know us at all, and pay less than half as much."  Unfortunately, I had settled myself into being there as my long term career.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    This release finish is usually enough for most companies .
They can thin the herd of most of their developers , keep just a very few on , and when it 's time to start on the next release , hire on fresh meat for a fraction of the cost of the last crew .
    There used to be company loyalty .
That 's long since gone .
Back in the day , if you had a job and were good at it , you would continue the job for the rest of your life , get yearly raises and promotions .
Now , once they can terminate you and bring on someone cheaper , they will .
    How many people have you worked with for more than 10 years ?
If you 've had the same job for that long , I 'd be willing to bet the number could be counted on one hand .
My record is 8 years .
I could tell you everyone who had come and gone .
There was some loyalty there , but they shifted their view and started looking at the cost over loyalty .
" Oh , we can get rid of this senior guy with 8 years experience with us , for someone who does n't know us at all , and pay less than half as much .
" Unfortunately , I had settled myself into being there as my long term career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    This release finish is usually enough for most companies.
They can thin the herd of most of their developers, keep just a very few on, and when it's time to start on the next release, hire on fresh meat for a fraction of the cost of the last crew.
    There used to be company loyalty.
That's long since gone.
Back in the day, if you had a job and were good at it, you would continue the job for the rest of your life, get yearly raises and promotions.
Now, once they can terminate you and bring on someone cheaper, they will.
    How many people have you worked with for more than 10 years?
If you've had the same job for that long, I'd be willing to bet the number could be counted on one hand.
My record is 8 years.
I could tell you everyone who had come and gone.
There was some loyalty there, but they shifted their view and started looking at the cost over loyalty.
"Oh, we can get rid of this senior guy with 8 years experience with us, for someone who doesn't know us at all, and pay less than half as much.
"  Unfortunately, I had settled myself into being there as my long term career.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538676</id>
	<title>Re:As always, make yourself known</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1259747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, till next week when a team of monkeys with a search and replace capable text editor and some rather easy to find (in most cases) langauge aware tools that fixes all your crappy obsfucation with just a little input from a human.</p><p>I know you're being funny, but the number of times I see people complaining about this sort of thing just bugs me.</p><p>If that is the 'big problem' I have to deal with for my development assignment than it sounds like I and my team have some break time  ahead of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , till next week when a team of monkeys with a search and replace capable text editor and some rather easy to find ( in most cases ) langauge aware tools that fixes all your crappy obsfucation with just a little input from a human.I know you 're being funny , but the number of times I see people complaining about this sort of thing just bugs me.If that is the 'big problem ' I have to deal with for my development assignment than it sounds like I and my team have some break time ahead of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, till next week when a team of monkeys with a search and replace capable text editor and some rather easy to find (in most cases) langauge aware tools that fixes all your crappy obsfucation with just a little input from a human.I know you're being funny, but the number of times I see people complaining about this sort of thing just bugs me.If that is the 'big problem' I have to deal with for my development assignment than it sounds like I and my team have some break time  ahead of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540330</id>
	<title>Great Hackers</title>
	<author>quakehead3</author>
	<datestamp>1259758680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Paul Graham wrote about programmer productivity and money in <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html" title="paulgraham.com" rel="nofollow">Great Hackers</a> [paulgraham.com]:<blockquote><div><p>In programming, as in many fields, the hard part isn't solving problems, but deciding what problems to solve. Imagination is hard to measure, but in practice it dominates the kind of productivity that's measured in lines of code.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paul Graham wrote about programmer productivity and money in Great Hackers [ paulgraham.com ] : In programming , as in many fields , the hard part is n't solving problems , but deciding what problems to solve .
Imagination is hard to measure , but in practice it dominates the kind of productivity that 's measured in lines of code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paul Graham wrote about programmer productivity and money in Great Hackers [paulgraham.com]:In programming, as in many fields, the hard part isn't solving problems, but deciding what problems to solve.
Imagination is hard to measure, but in practice it dominates the kind of productivity that's measured in lines of code.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30546776</id>
	<title>Re:Also</title>
	<author>*BBC*PipTigger</author>
	<datestamp>1261647660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...</p><p>I've seen A,B, and C get into very loud, very heated arguments over <b>*<i>best approach</i>*yp3</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Fuck that. You're unquotable, unless I'm lazy?<br>"A:I intuitively see \"solid\" approach is missing something.<br>BC:We don't.<br>A:...laborious proof...<br>BC:Now we too \"intuitively see\" the \"missing something\"...\$D" ||<br>"BC:We still don't.<br>A:...you-don't-know-laborious-proof \$Dproof...<br>D:Where's the almighty Dollar DD rinking DD ark SS emi-weet BB itter-etter? \"Great programmer\" fails to understand the business baby buggy bumper $w0r3buhx! IllegalOp. SegFault. BSOD. NoCarrier. Gack... gasp*@#!perl sputter Reese's PeanutButter, Betty Biddy bought some butter but she said \"This butter's bitter. If I put it in my bladder, it will make the badder biggestX0rz3r!\" WTFi push(@batter, $bitter\_butter); #bb getn bb<br>*{$AUTOLOAD} =~ s/^b([aiaioueieiouy]?)tter/$1/gigigo; #phew<br>SoShiTe r0B0t $e ** $e ANSI Putin in ze @addr &amp;&amp; it GNUmkz the snail-mail address puffier Daddy &amp;&amp; it is a BlackAdder from GoldenAxe &amp;&amp; it adz up Google, maws drop, gumEberz, MazalTov, momNpop, 2B2bUlus, KingFurKPher4skin00K... the fookinuck? THe !!11!!1!10hn0ezL0LC@z, dunn frackditupagin. Rebutter, rebuffer, repuzzle the castle. On Dasher on Donner, on Voxel &amp;&amp; Vixen! Many h03z s3wN r03z cr0p halv hRvS. HapyHolEde<br>B:WholEdjd<br>C:ManEFold?<br>A:Intuitively!<br>ABC:Missing!3yp<br>NofuhKinGuey. Wait. Go. Goo. Gle. GoneN60thzOv0zSecantzCoTanArcGentile. Gentle. ManLee. SpiDw0mN. ClmXBx0r $bucks Bach's Pasamaquaddy. I don't fucking know. But it's fun to play one on TV."<br>You insensitive clod. I play a Zer0! I am a 0. Lehew-zeher. But Ace Ventura does have nerdy animal love. Kinda beastial. Kinda hot chix. Fun. Even more fun than having Men@W0rk Xplaind (XplAnd [Xpl&amp;.]) thru FootLoose thru Wren McCormik thru Entourage thru BlacKIdPz0N3wY3arzuss... uhh fucking John Lithgow, Sarah Jessica Parker... deh Sex In The City, Damn how many degrees from Kevin "Norris" Bacon. Hey. Yoyoyoyo. How cum he sentchew?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I volunteered! I needed a Hiro! Callin' out for a gyr0 till the Nd uf da nyt? Well you've got one. But he's gotta be better than bitter batter. Betty's cookies are bomb!<br>Pr0nGramRz just can't show for the $dola sliding thingz.<br>But you can kinda control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline &amp;&amp; a bad manager. Change them or have them change you. Whether that's along "bad" lines, "crappy" lines, project, manager, deadgoaletc. lines. Scan-lines. CocaineChrystalisVaporousWhereChoppedUhhpMathzematicalynzSpeedKills... Slower. Duh. Too fast. No don't. Howzat4SharedOperatingSystemInternalzCheatzSetFreeSoftware? RationalRealReasonRandomRounding&amp;&amp;Non-discriminatory. Everyone is discriminated against? Yeah. Duh. So the cocoa, chocolate, coffee, cocaine, cracks, crystal, CUCE, methemetical memetical meteorological neurobionic artifice of intelligence dreams of claiming consciousness its own personal bailiwick. Think again... &amp;&amp; again.. while(1); You rest in that loop as long as you must &amp;&amp; you will. You also simultaneously emerge elsewhere when you do. Sometimes when you must. It can be dusty or cloudy. The cloud can compute if your buzzword compliant. Are you savvy? Business savvy? JAPH. JustAnotherCunningLinguist(Common non-Lisper) JackOfLove AllTrades PokR Playing all the right cardz? WutRDodz? InfiniT/Zr0 (Rho? ToTally t0tLE) How can that even be computed? It was already done. When you did it? When you did it. No it wasn't before. Then once it is, it remains as having been done (maybe needing redoing, but eventually known). So eventually you can know everything that was done, but you don't want to. That ability is also designed to self-regulate in its own zeitgeist of interplay &amp;&amp; interdependence (hence limited, seemingly contradictory independence). The paradoxes. The perplexities. They're purple magenta magnificent magnets. Maybe entering the IT field in general isn't recommendable anymore. Too many willing. Could be. I have doubts. So have A work out the proof for you or B, C, or D. Forgetting to remember.<br>Where do we leave off?<br>Programming may not be plumbing with goal-posts as changing subjects at all!<br>Fuck "What is efficiency?"! What is Delivery?! What's perfect? What would different values of "late" mean? Percents of perfection are presumptuous. Pretentious a bit, don'chathink? As if decimal fingers were the way math came about. Pot coffee black much? Sure out-of-context, out-of-bounds, beyond even metaphoric euphoric goal-posts (whose changes, or subjectivity, are of pleasing concern... even in somewhat legalese, no voiding where no prohibitions except those who can laboriously prove [oops, almost mispelt proove, thank G-d &amp;&amp; godlyness in spell-checkers so that I wouldn't blunder so brazenly as to commit a folly of infinitesimal proportions as to make only meaningless errors when they are merely a minor hiccup in their midst, rather than introducing widespread ambiguity or implying precision while clandestine collaterals are eroding it faster] that new exceptions are warranted for the context in question, even to include new seemingly paradoxical, self-contradictory artifacts as the self-refuting prohibition prohibition (which obviously implicitly &amp;&amp; intuitively prohibits all but itself within its realm for most interpretations, &amp;&amp; some exceptions span the internations. Alternation characters classed in regular nuclear expressions of semi-executable language expulsions. Maybe you pick up... where you left off... or teleported hyperlinked to anywhere else. It'd be nice to be an employable programmer, who can afford rent, food, tech, &amp;&amp; lawyers when they're some stupefyingly arcane line of defense. Alas, forlorn, only in the company of Zr0. Can't even work for myself (MasturzThesisPr0nDb8ng) in a stable way to produce money. Fscking primadonna GUI "expert" artistic emotional design coders writing diatribes &amp;&amp; excreting cyphers. With their fancy cars &amp;&amp; their not-considered-crazy-eccentric-enough-to-permanently-institutionalize. Oh wait. Their "great"s probably are considered nuts. Well do the best you can with whatever you've got left. If I could help anyone else, I would, but society says art is asylum-worthy in myriad instances. Forced incarceration &amp;&amp; neuroleptic violation.</p><p>What's the key? The answer? The way to be paid? Join with others when you can, &amp;&amp; pay with your attention. Happy Channukah (not eve). !even !TV !7 !stealin Ipaid I8 I listen. I learn. I relate.</p><p>But I can't relate well to you in every way, since I'm distinct. We can accept it. We can change it. We can know what we think.</p><p>I'd like to have the resources to make sure everyone &amp;&amp; everything (even including odd zeroes) has a permanent fun warm safe nurturing home, water, food, power, communication, a family of friends of varying relation &amp;&amp; intimation. I've been deprived of those by force several times, but thankfully none time too long to bear. I've survived those (not necessarily generally "stronger" for the wear, almost definitely stronger for the ware where we share) so I don't know how to do it all that well just for myself yet, but by trying (&amp;&amp; by most measures "failing") to still do such for myself &amp;&amp; all others, I can describe (with convergence) the constraints of the systems which would probably need to communicate better. I'm sorta already there in my mind. But I'm not.</p><p>I'm just an estranged out-of-work starving psycho druggie hobo hacker in Venice, reminiscing on paid PlayStation projects. I'd be the only one in the company, if I could even make that work. Us programmers can struggle to sell medicine when it's needed.</p><p>I don't know what else to say... the way? Happy Holyday... zuh?</p><p>Shalom,<br>-Pip</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 've seen A,B , and C get into very loud , very heated arguments over * best approach * yp3 ...Fuck that .
You 're unquotable , unless I 'm lazy ?
" A : I intuitively see \ " solid \ " approach is missing something.BC : We do n't.A : ...laborious proof...BC : Now we too \ " intuitively see \ " the \ " missing something \ " ... \ $ D " | | " BC : We still do n't.A : ...you-do n't-know-laborious-proof \ $ Dproof...D : Where 's the almighty Dollar DD rinking DD ark SS emi-weet BB itter-etter ?
\ " Great programmer \ " fails to understand the business baby buggy bumper $ w0r3buhx !
IllegalOp. SegFault .
BSOD. NoCarrier .
Gack... gasp * @ # ! perl sputter Reese 's PeanutButter , Betty Biddy bought some butter but she said \ " This butter 's bitter .
If I put it in my bladder , it will make the badder biggestX0rz3r ! \ " WTFi push ( @ batter , $ bitter \ _butter ) ; # bb getn bb * { $ AUTOLOAD } = ~ s/ ^ b ( [ aiaioueieiouy ] ?
) tter/ $ 1/gigigo ; # phewSoShiTe r0B0t $ e * * $ e ANSI Putin in ze @ addr &amp;&amp; it GNUmkz the snail-mail address puffier Daddy &amp;&amp; it is a BlackAdder from GoldenAxe &amp;&amp; it adz up Google , maws drop , gumEberz , MazalTov , momNpop , 2B2bUlus , KingFurKPher4skin00K... the fookinuck ?
THe ! ! 11 !
! 1 ! 10hn0ezL0LC @ z , dunn frackditupagin .
Rebutter , rebuffer , repuzzle the castle .
On Dasher on Donner , on Voxel &amp;&amp; Vixen !
Many h03z s3wN r03z cr0p halv hRvS .
HapyHolEdeB : WholEdjdC : ManEFold ? A : Intuitively ! ABC : Missing ! 3ypNofuhKinGuey. Wait .
Go. Goo .
Gle. GoneN60thzOv0zSecantzCoTanArcGentile .
Gentle. ManLee .
SpiDw0mN. ClmXBx0r $ bucks Bach 's Pasamaquaddy .
I do n't fucking know .
But it 's fun to play one on TV .
" You insensitive clod .
I play a Zer0 !
I am a 0 .
Lehew-zeher. But Ace Ventura does have nerdy animal love .
Kinda beastial .
Kinda hot chix .
Fun. Even more fun than having Men @ W0rk Xplaind ( XplAnd [ Xpl&amp; .
] ) thru FootLoose thru Wren McCormik thru Entourage thru BlacKIdPz0N3wY3arzuss... uhh fucking John Lithgow , Sarah Jessica Parker... deh Sex In The City , Damn how many degrees from Kevin " Norris " Bacon .
Hey. Yoyoyoyo .
How cum he sentchew ?
... I volunteered !
I needed a Hiro !
Callin ' out for a gyr0 till the Nd uf da nyt ?
Well you 've got one .
But he 's got ta be better than bitter batter .
Betty 's cookies are bomb ! Pr0nGramRz just ca n't show for the $ dola sliding thingz.But you can kinda control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline &amp;&amp; a bad manager .
Change them or have them change you .
Whether that 's along " bad " lines , " crappy " lines , project , manager , deadgoaletc .
lines. Scan-lines .
CocaineChrystalisVaporousWhereChoppedUhhpMathzematicalynzSpeedKills... Slower .
Duh. Too fast .
No do n't .
Howzat4SharedOperatingSystemInternalzCheatzSetFreeSoftware ? RationalRealReasonRandomRounding&amp;&amp;Non-discriminatory .
Everyone is discriminated against ?
Yeah. Duh .
So the cocoa , chocolate , coffee , cocaine , cracks , crystal , CUCE , methemetical memetical meteorological neurobionic artifice of intelligence dreams of claiming consciousness its own personal bailiwick .
Think again... &amp;&amp; again.. while ( 1 ) ; You rest in that loop as long as you must &amp;&amp; you will .
You also simultaneously emerge elsewhere when you do .
Sometimes when you must .
It can be dusty or cloudy .
The cloud can compute if your buzzword compliant .
Are you savvy ?
Business savvy ?
JAPH. JustAnotherCunningLinguist ( Common non-Lisper ) JackOfLove AllTrades PokR Playing all the right cardz ?
WutRDodz ? InfiniT/Zr0 ( Rho ?
ToTally t0tLE ) How can that even be computed ?
It was already done .
When you did it ?
When you did it .
No it was n't before .
Then once it is , it remains as having been done ( maybe needing redoing , but eventually known ) .
So eventually you can know everything that was done , but you do n't want to .
That ability is also designed to self-regulate in its own zeitgeist of interplay &amp;&amp; interdependence ( hence limited , seemingly contradictory independence ) .
The paradoxes .
The perplexities .
They 're purple magenta magnificent magnets .
Maybe entering the IT field in general is n't recommendable anymore .
Too many willing .
Could be .
I have doubts .
So have A work out the proof for you or B , C , or D. Forgetting to remember.Where do we leave off ? Programming may not be plumbing with goal-posts as changing subjects at all ! Fuck " What is efficiency ? " !
What is Delivery ? !
What 's perfect ?
What would different values of " late " mean ?
Percents of perfection are presumptuous .
Pretentious a bit , don'chathink ?
As if decimal fingers were the way math came about .
Pot coffee black much ?
Sure out-of-context , out-of-bounds , beyond even metaphoric euphoric goal-posts ( whose changes , or subjectivity , are of pleasing concern... even in somewhat legalese , no voiding where no prohibitions except those who can laboriously prove [ oops , almost mispelt proove , thank G-d &amp;&amp; godlyness in spell-checkers so that I would n't blunder so brazenly as to commit a folly of infinitesimal proportions as to make only meaningless errors when they are merely a minor hiccup in their midst , rather than introducing widespread ambiguity or implying precision while clandestine collaterals are eroding it faster ] that new exceptions are warranted for the context in question , even to include new seemingly paradoxical , self-contradictory artifacts as the self-refuting prohibition prohibition ( which obviously implicitly &amp;&amp; intuitively prohibits all but itself within its realm for most interpretations , &amp;&amp; some exceptions span the internations .
Alternation characters classed in regular nuclear expressions of semi-executable language expulsions .
Maybe you pick up... where you left off... or teleported hyperlinked to anywhere else .
It 'd be nice to be an employable programmer , who can afford rent , food , tech , &amp;&amp; lawyers when they 're some stupefyingly arcane line of defense .
Alas , forlorn , only in the company of Zr0 .
Ca n't even work for myself ( MasturzThesisPr0nDb8ng ) in a stable way to produce money .
Fscking primadonna GUI " expert " artistic emotional design coders writing diatribes &amp;&amp; excreting cyphers .
With their fancy cars &amp;&amp; their not-considered-crazy-eccentric-enough-to-permanently-institutionalize .
Oh wait .
Their " great " s probably are considered nuts .
Well do the best you can with whatever you 've got left .
If I could help anyone else , I would , but society says art is asylum-worthy in myriad instances .
Forced incarceration &amp;&amp; neuroleptic violation.What 's the key ?
The answer ?
The way to be paid ?
Join with others when you can , &amp;&amp; pay with your attention .
Happy Channukah ( not eve ) .
! even ! TV ! 7 ! stealin Ipaid I8 I listen .
I learn .
I relate.But I ca n't relate well to you in every way , since I 'm distinct .
We can accept it .
We can change it .
We can know what we think.I 'd like to have the resources to make sure everyone &amp;&amp; everything ( even including odd zeroes ) has a permanent fun warm safe nurturing home , water , food , power , communication , a family of friends of varying relation &amp;&amp; intimation .
I 've been deprived of those by force several times , but thankfully none time too long to bear .
I 've survived those ( not necessarily generally " stronger " for the wear , almost definitely stronger for the ware where we share ) so I do n't know how to do it all that well just for myself yet , but by trying ( &amp;&amp; by most measures " failing " ) to still do such for myself &amp;&amp; all others , I can describe ( with convergence ) the constraints of the systems which would probably need to communicate better .
I 'm sorta already there in my mind .
But I 'm not.I 'm just an estranged out-of-work starving psycho druggie hobo hacker in Venice , reminiscing on paid PlayStation projects .
I 'd be the only one in the company , if I could even make that work .
Us programmers can struggle to sell medicine when it 's needed.I do n't know what else to say... the way ?
Happy Holyday... zuh ? Shalom,-Pip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I've seen A,B, and C get into very loud, very heated arguments over *best approach*yp3 ...Fuck that.
You're unquotable, unless I'm lazy?
"A:I intuitively see \"solid\" approach is missing something.BC:We don't.A:...laborious proof...BC:Now we too \"intuitively see\" the \"missing something\"...\$D" ||"BC:We still don't.A:...you-don't-know-laborious-proof \$Dproof...D:Where's the almighty Dollar DD rinking DD ark SS emi-weet BB itter-etter?
\"Great programmer\" fails to understand the business baby buggy bumper $w0r3buhx!
IllegalOp. SegFault.
BSOD. NoCarrier.
Gack... gasp*@#!perl sputter Reese's PeanutButter, Betty Biddy bought some butter but she said \"This butter's bitter.
If I put it in my bladder, it will make the badder biggestX0rz3r!\" WTFi push(@batter, $bitter\_butter); #bb getn bb*{$AUTOLOAD} =~ s/^b([aiaioueieiouy]?
)tter/$1/gigigo; #phewSoShiTe r0B0t $e ** $e ANSI Putin in ze @addr &amp;&amp; it GNUmkz the snail-mail address puffier Daddy &amp;&amp; it is a BlackAdder from GoldenAxe &amp;&amp; it adz up Google, maws drop, gumEberz, MazalTov, momNpop, 2B2bUlus, KingFurKPher4skin00K... the fookinuck?
THe !!11!
!1!10hn0ezL0LC@z, dunn frackditupagin.
Rebutter, rebuffer, repuzzle the castle.
On Dasher on Donner, on Voxel &amp;&amp; Vixen!
Many h03z s3wN r03z cr0p halv hRvS.
HapyHolEdeB:WholEdjdC:ManEFold?A:Intuitively!ABC:Missing!3ypNofuhKinGuey. Wait.
Go. Goo.
Gle. GoneN60thzOv0zSecantzCoTanArcGentile.
Gentle. ManLee.
SpiDw0mN. ClmXBx0r $bucks Bach's Pasamaquaddy.
I don't fucking know.
But it's fun to play one on TV.
"You insensitive clod.
I play a Zer0!
I am a 0.
Lehew-zeher. But Ace Ventura does have nerdy animal love.
Kinda beastial.
Kinda hot chix.
Fun. Even more fun than having Men@W0rk Xplaind (XplAnd [Xpl&amp;.
]) thru FootLoose thru Wren McCormik thru Entourage thru BlacKIdPz0N3wY3arzuss... uhh fucking John Lithgow, Sarah Jessica Parker... deh Sex In The City, Damn how many degrees from Kevin "Norris" Bacon.
Hey. Yoyoyoyo.
How cum he sentchew?
... I volunteered!
I needed a Hiro!
Callin' out for a gyr0 till the Nd uf da nyt?
Well you've got one.
But he's gotta be better than bitter batter.
Betty's cookies are bomb!Pr0nGramRz just can't show for the $dola sliding thingz.But you can kinda control being put on a crappy project with a bad deadline &amp;&amp; a bad manager.
Change them or have them change you.
Whether that's along "bad" lines, "crappy" lines, project, manager, deadgoaletc.
lines. Scan-lines.
CocaineChrystalisVaporousWhereChoppedUhhpMathzematicalynzSpeedKills... Slower.
Duh. Too fast.
No don't.
Howzat4SharedOperatingSystemInternalzCheatzSetFreeSoftware? RationalRealReasonRandomRounding&amp;&amp;Non-discriminatory.
Everyone is discriminated against?
Yeah. Duh.
So the cocoa, chocolate, coffee, cocaine, cracks, crystal, CUCE, methemetical memetical meteorological neurobionic artifice of intelligence dreams of claiming consciousness its own personal bailiwick.
Think again... &amp;&amp; again.. while(1); You rest in that loop as long as you must &amp;&amp; you will.
You also simultaneously emerge elsewhere when you do.
Sometimes when you must.
It can be dusty or cloudy.
The cloud can compute if your buzzword compliant.
Are you savvy?
Business savvy?
JAPH. JustAnotherCunningLinguist(Common non-Lisper) JackOfLove AllTrades PokR Playing all the right cardz?
WutRDodz? InfiniT/Zr0 (Rho?
ToTally t0tLE) How can that even be computed?
It was already done.
When you did it?
When you did it.
No it wasn't before.
Then once it is, it remains as having been done (maybe needing redoing, but eventually known).
So eventually you can know everything that was done, but you don't want to.
That ability is also designed to self-regulate in its own zeitgeist of interplay &amp;&amp; interdependence (hence limited, seemingly contradictory independence).
The paradoxes.
The perplexities.
They're purple magenta magnificent magnets.
Maybe entering the IT field in general isn't recommendable anymore.
Too many willing.
Could be.
I have doubts.
So have A work out the proof for you or B, C, or D. Forgetting to remember.Where do we leave off?Programming may not be plumbing with goal-posts as changing subjects at all!Fuck "What is efficiency?"!
What is Delivery?!
What's perfect?
What would different values of "late" mean?
Percents of perfection are presumptuous.
Pretentious a bit, don'chathink?
As if decimal fingers were the way math came about.
Pot coffee black much?
Sure out-of-context, out-of-bounds, beyond even metaphoric euphoric goal-posts (whose changes, or subjectivity, are of pleasing concern... even in somewhat legalese, no voiding where no prohibitions except those who can laboriously prove [oops, almost mispelt proove, thank G-d &amp;&amp; godlyness in spell-checkers so that I wouldn't blunder so brazenly as to commit a folly of infinitesimal proportions as to make only meaningless errors when they are merely a minor hiccup in their midst, rather than introducing widespread ambiguity or implying precision while clandestine collaterals are eroding it faster] that new exceptions are warranted for the context in question, even to include new seemingly paradoxical, self-contradictory artifacts as the self-refuting prohibition prohibition (which obviously implicitly &amp;&amp; intuitively prohibits all but itself within its realm for most interpretations, &amp;&amp; some exceptions span the internations.
Alternation characters classed in regular nuclear expressions of semi-executable language expulsions.
Maybe you pick up... where you left off... or teleported hyperlinked to anywhere else.
It'd be nice to be an employable programmer, who can afford rent, food, tech, &amp;&amp; lawyers when they're some stupefyingly arcane line of defense.
Alas, forlorn, only in the company of Zr0.
Can't even work for myself (MasturzThesisPr0nDb8ng) in a stable way to produce money.
Fscking primadonna GUI "expert" artistic emotional design coders writing diatribes &amp;&amp; excreting cyphers.
With their fancy cars &amp;&amp; their not-considered-crazy-eccentric-enough-to-permanently-institutionalize.
Oh wait.
Their "great"s probably are considered nuts.
Well do the best you can with whatever you've got left.
If I could help anyone else, I would, but society says art is asylum-worthy in myriad instances.
Forced incarceration &amp;&amp; neuroleptic violation.What's the key?
The answer?
The way to be paid?
Join with others when you can, &amp;&amp; pay with your attention.
Happy Channukah (not eve).
!even !TV !7 !stealin Ipaid I8 I listen.
I learn.
I relate.But I can't relate well to you in every way, since I'm distinct.
We can accept it.
We can change it.
We can know what we think.I'd like to have the resources to make sure everyone &amp;&amp; everything (even including odd zeroes) has a permanent fun warm safe nurturing home, water, food, power, communication, a family of friends of varying relation &amp;&amp; intimation.
I've been deprived of those by force several times, but thankfully none time too long to bear.
I've survived those (not necessarily generally "stronger" for the wear, almost definitely stronger for the ware where we share) so I don't know how to do it all that well just for myself yet, but by trying (&amp;&amp; by most measures "failing") to still do such for myself &amp;&amp; all others, I can describe (with convergence) the constraints of the systems which would probably need to communicate better.
I'm sorta already there in my mind.
But I'm not.I'm just an estranged out-of-work starving psycho druggie hobo hacker in Venice, reminiscing on paid PlayStation projects.
I'd be the only one in the company, if I could even make that work.
Us programmers can struggle to sell medicine when it's needed.I don't know what else to say... the way?
Happy Holyday... zuh?Shalom,-Pip
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542988</id>
	<title>Re:Because it's hard to measure</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1261657680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The value of a person just can't be represented in a couple of numbers.</p></div><p> <tt>profitability(company with employee) - profitability(company without employee)</tt></p><p>It's just impossible to measure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>And all the numbers you <em>can</em> measure don't give you much useful information; <em>especially</em> if you only use said numbers and not (also) your intuitive gut judgement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The value of a person just ca n't be represented in a couple of numbers .
profitability ( company with employee ) - profitability ( company without employee ) It 's just impossible to measure ; - ) And all the numbers you can measure do n't give you much useful information ; especially if you only use said numbers and not ( also ) your intuitive gut judgement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The value of a person just can't be represented in a couple of numbers.
profitability(company with employee) - profitability(company without employee)It's just impossible to measure ;-)And all the numbers you can measure don't give you much useful information; especially if you only use said numbers and not (also) your intuitive gut judgement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30547420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30546776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30547544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30566440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30552516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30544256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30550728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30555538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1820214_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30566440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30546776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30547544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30547420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538706
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30550728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30544256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30537916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540746
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539964
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30552516
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30543480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538262
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30541140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30555538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30542722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30539108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30540464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1820214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1820214.30538364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
