Dijkstra: Battle Between Managers / Beancounters & Technologists [pdf]
cs.utexas.edu
cs.utexas.edu
First, Dijkstra argues, "There is no such thing as 'making money': some people succeed in transferring money out of the pockets of others into their own." The implication of his argument is that economic activity is zero sum - you can't create value, you can only take it from someone else. This is patently false - there is far more wealth in the world now than there was 100 years ago. If it is impossible to 'make money,' then where did this extra wealth come from? When I buy a computer from Dell, it's a win-win situation. Dell gets money from me, and i get a powerful tool which I could use to develop software, which I could then sell to others for more than the cost of the computer. The software that I write is wealth that I have created - the world is better off with the software in it than without the software.
Dijkstra then expresses his animus against banks, saying they become rich by trying to speculate at someone else's expense. This may be true of investment banks, but what about a bank that makes loans to new businesses? Exactly whose expense are the banks profiting from? The business gets ahead because it needs capital to get off the ground, and the banks get ahead because they earn interest on money that would otherwise be sitting idle.
I agree with his main argument, that 'software engineering' is a rather meaningless term, but I disagree with his hateful attitude towards the industrial world.
Now, there is a way to literally "make money": producing it out of thin air (this produces zero value by itself). Central banks do it by printing bank notes, the others do it through loans (using a complicated recursive scheme I don't fully understand).
Dijkstra's animosity against bank is understandable: they create money (about 90% of it) out of nothing, make loans with it (for an interest rate, not for a fee), and sometimes even speculate with your deposit (which is 90% created money by them). Despite the current regulation systems, this sounds like an awful lot of power in the hands of private interests.
Banks aren't intrinsically sociopathic, but i think their unique position at the center of all the economic transactions means that they are especially prone to bad behaviour and distortion. They do need special regulatory treatment. You'd put even the kindliest rottweiler on a leash as a precaution, but it would be senseless to extend this to all dogs.
Thats an even better reason to try. I find that the best way to learn from smart people is to question them. That way you learn what they know and/or see the way they reason.
That said, a pretty timeless piece if somewhat black-and-white.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~nathanen/files/cbi-gender.pdf
It is hilarious. PL/I must be incredibly easy if this cute blonde can handle it!
It was illegal in 1860 to have a half black half white president in U.S.
No, it wasn't. Disagree? Point to the relevant part of the US constitution. (The 3/5ths clause isn't on point, and before you point to it, ask yourself who benefits from a higher number and who benefits from a lower number. Hint - slave states wanted a higher number....)
There were free blacks in the US from before the revolution. The males were eligible to vote and hold office.
Someone read far too much Nietzsche that week.
I love Dijkstra's writings (and his penmanship, for that matter). I also quietly enjoy that most of them end by referencing my alma mater. Hook 'em Horns. :-)