Number of Coders In Congress To Triple (From One To Three) 163
jfruh writes Last weekend, Tim Berners-Lee said that the UK needs more members of parliament who can code. Well, the most recent U.S. congressional election has obliged him on this side of the Atlantic: the number of coders in Congress has tripled, with the downside being that their numbers have gone from one to three.
IQ of congress (Score:2)
However, I'd rather have morons in power than smart guys. The smart guys can really screw us!
Re: (Score:2)
Is at an all time high.
However, I'd rather have morons in power than smart guys. The smart guys can really screw us!
Even worse, smart guys with the best of intentions.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm good with coders in congress; as long as they have debugging experience, and most of the bugs were in code written by their peers.
Re: (Score:2)
If the bugs weren't written by their peers, they'd be features.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm good with coders in congress; as long as they have debugging experience, and most of the bugs were in code written by their peers.
The problem is these coders will never see the 1.0 release before they are asked to vote on it. There are no opportunities to debug the first draft.
Re: (Score:2)
Why debug the first draft when you have the entire nation acting as quality control?
Re: (Score:2)
Worked for Microsoft!
Re: (Score:2)
Vauge requirements and design are par for the course.
Re: (Score:2)
Vauge requirements and design are par for the course.
Shipping without any testing and bug fixes at all are not.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new to software development....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you do know how parliamentary procedure works with you know amendments to motions :-) id suggest reading Citrine and Roberts rules as background than the standing orders and rules of debate for the congress before making that assumption
Did you ever watch CSPAN when Obamacare was being drafted? I watched one night. Something drafted in the backrooms by who knows who was brought out. Democrats offered zero amendments. Some republicans offered BS amendments and were rightfully voted down. Other republicans offered constructive well thought out amendments with explanations for the problem / unintended consequence they were addressing. Every single one of these amendments were voted down **without** discussion. No questions. No debate. No disc
Re: (Score:2)
Every change means more headaches when the bill goes to reconciliation between the two houses. That’s one of the big disadvantages of a bicameral legislature—there’s a strong disincentive to fixing problems by the time a bill gets out of committee, which means if you’re not on the committee, you usually have little to no say unless the problem with the bill is grave, in which case enough people vote against it (you hope) to keep it from passing, and the committee has to rethink it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm where these "constructive well thought out amendments " actually spoiling amendments?
No. Those I lumped under "Some republicans offered BS amendments and were rightfully voted down.".
What I thought "constructive well thought out amendments" were more like someone identifying a loophole/exploit and suggesting a fix. A fix that did not go against the spirit and intent of the legislation. Reasonable constructive criticisms and suggestions. And I want to emphasize these loopholes and exploits were not even discussed. Zero questions, zero debate, zero discussion; just an immediate no vote. It
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they have debugging experience
Don't get your hopes up. Despite what the summary says, the article says the complete opposite. The newly elected members do not have any "coders" (god I hate that word), but they do contain 2 people with CS degrees. One of them went to work for the CIA on counterterrorism, followed by working for a cybersecurity company, and the other joined the Air Force and then became a lawyer. They are not software developers, they are people who majored in computer science.
Re: (Score:2)
The smart guys can really screw us!
All coders are smart?
Re:IQ of congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Was just gonna say this. I know a guy who can do all kinds of coding and believes that both evolution and climate change are not real. Another who thinks the moon landing was a hoax. Apart from these tinfoil-hatters, I also know some coders who are massive douchebags and even idiots.
Ability to code is no guarantee of good intelligence or character.
Re:IQ of congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Addendum: Now that I think of it, if I had to choose between a politician who was a coder and one who wasn't a coder with no other information, I'd vote for the non-coder. Too high a percentage of the coders I know (or know of) are conspiracy nuts and/or egomaniac manchildren.
Re: (Score:3)
Addendum: Now that I think of it, if I had to choose between a politician who was a coder and one who wasn't a coder with no other information, I'd vote for the non-coder. Too high a percentage of the coders I know (or know of) are conspiracy nuts and/or egomaniac manchildren.
I'm guessing a high percentage of the people you discuss issues with are coders.
A high percentage of people are conspiracy nuts and/or egomaniac (wo?)manchildren.
Re:IQ of congress (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IQ of congress (Score:5, Insightful)
A world full of people like that means that a person of a skillset and interest that you are attributing to yourself should be able to find a very comfortable place.
I look at it this way. I'm not a fan of car salesmen. However, if I love cars, design a good one, and want to make a business out of it, I need car salesmen to sell the cars. Not all of them will love cars. Some of them will simply love making money or sales. They still help my dream to come true.
In theory, for every bunch of boot camp MCSEs out there, there needs to be at least one person who knows what they are doing. Although it feels like you may now be surrounded by careerists who don't love computing, those careerists ultimately make it possible for people who love computers to have a bigger niche to fit into.
The percentage of people who love computing against the careerists may be the same, or even lower than it was before, but the absolute number of enthusiasts has probably never been higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, that decades gone Xanadu has been replaced by legions of people just looking for a paycheck, who have never seen any other platform than Windows, and whose main qualification is that they have a certification or two.
Good news! That decade is gone also. Now we're on to a new decade with all new things to complain about!
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, kids, any field where you have to be very smart, well educated, and very dedicated just to get in will have tons of people who aren't as smart, as well educated, or as unwilling to suffer for their expertise who want the jobs. This means that the employers can pay crap and abuse their employees, because if one quits there's one almost as smart and educated who will take just a little more crap to work in the field. Alternately, the job is just so bleeping difficult that it will burn out people
Re: (Score:2)
Religion and political ideology indoctrination sometimes trump science, even with otherwise intelligent people. Proof: my brother believes both evolution and climate change are not real. He is a rich religious conservative republican that eats up both ideologies and listens to pretty much nothing but conservative talk radio. Other than that, he is also a brilliant electrical engineer with hundreds of patents that both codes and owns an electrical/computer engineering contracting company. Whenever people sug
Maybe it's you? (Score:2)
I don't know your brother and can't speak for him. I also don't have the same beliefs, I think evolution is real and humans have caused massive problems on Earth including Global Warming. At the same time, I don't believe everything people claim about either of those things. I question what I'm told, and that gets me labelled as a 'conspiracy theorist'.
As one easy example, I read through the UN Agenda 21 reports which were out well before many people were talking about global warming. Since I know the in
Re: (Score:2)
I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, so I have to go off of charts and information they provide. I also didn't jump on a bandwagon, I read arguments by both sides and studies.
In the end, there was a paper where something like 97% of scientists in the climate sciences field agree in climate change/global warming including the biggest naysayer that most republicans were using as a reference for a long time. The major flaw in the 97% study I believe was that about 75% of them assumed humans were at fault
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny "climate results" because those be facts. Projections into the future, presented as "factual" are not actual facts, they are beliefs built upon "scientific" Estimations and models that have so far completely failed in every definitively stated way possible. Yet you still believe them to be accurate and factual, using appeal to authority as your logical reason. FYI, Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
You have ONE stated scientific fact in your response to me, about CO2 increases. What you
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, can you explain why the polar caps grew last year (both of them) during "global warming" (or Climate Change)?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the polar caps will either grow or shrink (or both!) every single year, probably based largely on the local temperatures, amount of precipitation, etc. The real question would be how much they grew versus the average growth, and whether they are growing less than they used to. Saying that global warming doesn't exist because the polar caps grew last year is not evidence. What if the polar caps grow by an average of 10 feet every year, but last year they only g
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DNR
However, I'll just pick one point.
If it's a true statement to say that climate change and higher temperatures in general will cause more powerful hurricanes, does that necessarily mean that every year there will be a large number of very powerful hurricanes?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw... [npr.org]
Okay, you may be right. But they also said increased number of and more powerful hurricanes. The problem is, scientifically speaking (facts) we actually don't know anything due to a historically long period without a hurricane making landfall. We're going on 10 years without a major hurricane making landfall.
Hard to tell if they are more powerful if they don't show up, don't you think? The problem is that they made predictions that ar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Major Hurricane. The point. If hurricanes make landfall aren't of the type being hyped by global warming alarmists, in such a lull that is historic in nature, the claims are simply falsified. While you can be pendantic about verbiage and argue technicalities, those things do no support the thesis that "Global Warming is going to cause more and more severe hurricanes". Neither has actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DNR
However, I'll just pick one point.
I'll do you one better, and ignore your entire post. Debating is fun.
Re: (Score:2)
My theory is that their mind just can't take a break from analyzing things, and the rabbit hole of the conspiracy universe gives them plenty to occupy their thoughts with, it's too tempting for them to keep out of. The complex world of conspiracies is more fun and interesting than boring ol' real life, right?
I wonder if they'd still be into it if they'd found some other hobby that requires heavy logical thinking skills instead. I notice a big chunk of amateur racers are IT guys, setting up the various syste
Re: (Score:3)
I think it might be the creative aspect of it. The social climate of these conspiracy scenes seems to revolve around the idea that everyone will refrain from debunking each other's theories, even if they clash logically. So you get to invent your own take on the course of events and underlying motives of the different actors in the conspiracy and nobody gets to call you out on it.
When I was maybe 10 or 11 I used to enjoy fantasizing about secret tunnels and stuff run by ancient secret organizations, so I ca
Re: (Score:2)
My theory is that their mind just can't take a break from analyzing things, and the rabbit hole of the conspiracy universe gives them plenty to occupy their thoughts with, it's too tempting for them to keep out of. The complex world of conspiracies is more fun and interesting than boring ol' real life, right?
I wonder if they'd still be into it if they'd found some other hobby that requires heavy logical thinking skills instead. I notice a big chunk of amateur racers are IT guys, setting up the various systems on cars offers about as much mental challenge as you want to take on.
From what I can tell they get misled by the holes in reality.
For instance with 9/11 there are things that legitimately sound weird like WTC 7 supposedly being the only highrise to collapse from fire. If that is the case I'm guessing it was just a combination of weird coincidence and the fact that massive highrise fires are extremely rare, but that's not really why those conspiracy theories pop up.
I think the root cause of 9/11 style conspiracy theories is that 9/11 was such a big event that it was documente
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought a bit about this too, but I arrived at the opposite conclusion. I think the single most valuable thing one gets from being a programmer is debugging experience, which is actually quite similar to the scientific method: You start with a mental model of how your program works. You observe symptoms that indicate that that model is wrong - the program isn't behaving according to the model. You form a new model based on the observed behavior, and then modify the program to test the new model. And re
Re: IQ of congress (Score:2)
Cognitive dissonance. The mind is not internally consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
But it was a conspiracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_nltYf9gw
Re: (Score:2)
When a Congressman becomes a Senator, the IQ of both houses improves increases.
Re: (Score:2)
When a Congressman becomes a Senator, the IQ of both houses improves increases.
FYI, a Senator is also a Congressman.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. The words are segregated such that Congressman referred specifically to a member of the House of Representitives. Congressman Joe Smoe is a member of the House. You wouldnt say Congressman Bob Smith to refer to a Senator as Senator is his proper title. The phrase properly used to apply to generically to ether side is Member of Congress.
The closest you can get to use the word to apply to both sides, is to use it in the informal sense, ie lower case "congressman" as opposed to the formal sense
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no.
Really though, yeah. Congress is made up of the House Of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore, a Senator is also a Congressman. A Representative is a Congressman also. A Representative is not a Senator, and a Senator is not a Representative. Really. That's how it actually works. Just because people might prefer to refer to Representatives as the more general Congressmen does not mean that Senators are not also Congressmen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, they're less likely to stab you in the back.
Wait for the Holy Wars to start (Score:2)
Knowing programmers the most inconsequential thing will cause a 'Holy War' to break out. Also there will be trawling, grammer nazi-ism, heavy sarcasm, and an in- ability to empathize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When future president James Garfield [wikipedia.org] was a congressman, he published a new and innovative proof of the Pythagorean theorem. So not all congressmen were dumb. If computers existed in the 1870s, he probably would have been a coder.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was a smart guy, I'd make everyone think I'm a moron, so I could do anything I wanted and the real morons would always let it slide.
Well that's a start... (Score:2)
Re:Well that's a start... (Score:5, Funny)
They'll be too busy fighting over the space they get in the Capitol basement.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this law should have tabs!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, the code looks something like this right now
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int dem = 1;
int rep = 1;
void main() {
while (dem||rep)
{
fork();
}
}
For you non programmers, that is a slight take on an old UNIX joke for taking down the mainframe before we had process limits. Pretty sure congress doesn't have any limits, and they certainly can't budget.
Re:Well that's a start... (Score:5, Funny)
<PEDANTIC> main() returns int </PEDANTIC>
Re: (Score:3)
<counter-pedantic>Not in C++.</counter-pedantic>
Eh? The C++ standard explicitly forbids "void main()". From the standard:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you're serious.
The expert system you're looking for is a "judge".
What's actually written in legislation or on a contract doesn't matter. What matters is how a judge will interpret that law or contract in the context of your particular case. Yes, there have certainly been cases where a criminal defendant has gotten away with something because it wasn't technically a crime, and many contracts have been useless because they didn't explicitly prohibit a particular interpretation.
Just like comput
Re: (Score:2)
For that to happen, laws would have to be unambiguous, and they frequently aren't. Sometimes they're ambiguous because they had to be to get passed. Sometimes the concepts are fuzzy. Would you care to define precisely what is allowable self-defense and what isn't? Exactly what the boundaries of reckless driving are?
Re: (Score:2)
Are kidding me? We can compile a program for the government in a few lines. Note that I don't think this is completely illegitimate.!
#include <stdio.h>
void main () {
printf("Hello America\n");
while (1) {
sleep(9999);
}
}
Well 1 Real One (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well 1 Real One (Score:4, Funny)
Someone needs to tell Tim Berners-Lee that not all programmers agree on things such as patents, copyright, and the colour of the sky.
Or the spelling of "color"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well 1 Real One (Score:4, Funny)
All the "real programmers" do.
We all know that the color of the sky is: #87ceeb
Re: (Score:2)
All the "real programmers" do.
We all know that the color of the sky is: #87ceeb
Except in North Carolina where the sky is #56a0d3
Re: (Score:2)
Except on little endian architectures, where the sky is d3a056#.
I don't just disagree on those things, but.. (Score:3)
“We need more people in parliament who can code, not because we need them to spend their time coding but because they have got to understand how powerful a weapon it is, so that they can make laws that require people to code to make machines behave in different ways.”
I key in particularly on their desire to "make people behave in different ways". I'm not a big fan of obvious social engineering, at least try to hide it.
Ah, define "coder" please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the average age of those serving in Congress, perhaps it's important to define the term "coder" here.
Sure it's always beneficial to have a few "geeks" as lawmakers, but I kinda doubt that someone who took a FORTRAN class a few decades ago is going to be providing much value towards policy governing next-gen internet technologies.
Coding, maybe. Science for sure. (Score:5, Insightful)
Basic literacy in science, and the honesty to make evidence-based decisions would be much higher on my list of essential skills for congressvermin.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that science would be better than just being a coder, but I think coding could help if it contributes to a person's ability to think logically and consistently.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I think general science literacy would have greater overall impact and make a greater positive impact on my life and my confidence in the direction that things are going.
Coders? (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:2)
Uh-oh (Score:3)
I can just see the Java and C# factions forming.
That will leave the task of writing legislation to the third guy. The one who codes in Malbolge.
Re: (Score:3)
I can just see the Java and C# factions forming.
It fascinates me that there are people who would prefer to build things in either language.
Re: (Score:2)
I can just see the Java and C# factions forming.
That will leave the task of writing legislation to the third guy. The one who codes in Malbolge.
Its government the would write laws in obfuscated Brainfuck [wikipedia.org] just to screw with us.
No Thomas Massie? (Score:3)
Jared Polis (Score:3)
List is incomplete (Score:2)
Bill Foster, Congressman from Illinois, can program in assembly language, among others.
http://www.cnet.com/news/the-t... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Foster, Congressman from Illinois, can program in assembly language, among others.
FTA:
What this actually means to tech policy remains unclear. Computer programming skills do not automatically lead to sound logic or wise positions on important issues. A quick read through Slashdot user comments easily demonstrates this.
Ouch!
Bad news (Score:2)
They're COBOL programmers.
why is it a downside? (Score:2)
Is it because of the rule of threes?
GNU Congressman? (Score:2)
One of the new legislators-who've-written-code is Will HURD.
This just means ... (Score:2)
Re:Oh god, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every coder I've ever met has a black-and-white worldview
Hm... So I take it you're a coder as well?
With apologies to Firesign Theater: (Score:2)
"What are ya programmin' for, Timmy my boy?"
"Helps with my hallucinations. I get to see the world in its real black and white!"
(We're all coders on this bus.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, there are after all only 10 kinds of people in this world (those who know binary and those who don't).
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I would argue that science and technology committees should be populated almost entirely by people who understand science and technology, so to the extent that government is creating policy in those areas, there should be coders among the elected officials.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? When we put Comcast people into positions like FCC head, that's bad, right? Then why is it good when we put scientists into all relevant scientific positions? Wouldn't a science and technology committee be better off with available expertise and lots of different viewpoints?
Re: (Score:2)
Almost by definition, some of those scientists and technology exports would be industry scientists and technology experts, though some wouldn’t be. There’s your range of viewpoints. What I’m arguing is that the range of viewpoints on a science and technology committee need not include the anti-vaxxers, people who don’t believe in evolution, and people who truly think that computers work because of magic smoke. It should mostly or entirely consist of people with some science or te
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
scientists, (which is how come we still get to have shitstorms over people wearing pimp shirts)
You really have to explain that one...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting article, and insightful quote:
Decency and decorum can be liberating. They inconvenience everyone -- a little -- but they also free us from worrying about who we might offend or why.
Re: (Score:2)
Every coder I've ever met has a black-and-white worldview
Hasn't the US Congress by folks with a black and white view for the past 4 years? It just happens that the folks in one part see black and the other see white. And neither will work together, because that would disrupt their worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
That is how it appears, isn't it? 'Course, when you look below the surface, you'll discover that when it comes to the truly important things - indefinite detention of Americans without charges, militarizing police, justifying the murder of innocents abroad, justifying executions of Americans without trial, etc. - D and R couldn't agree more.
But this show is about moronic roommates who can't get along, not evil, avaricious fucks draining the blood of a nation for their own personal gain... right?
Re: (Score:2)
Web pages or web applications?
A CS degree is a pretty good base (Score:2)
To get a CS degree, he would have had to do a fair degree of programming - but even better is that he understands concepts like O(N) difficulty... it's important to have an understanding that sometimes things are not very possible because of sheep computational needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really not sure why a legislature is better off with somebody who understands computational complexity in particular. A legislature is better off when it can get good information on various sources in general, but why computational complexity?
Re: (Score:2)
A congressional coder takes requirements from lobbyists and translates them into a design and set of instructions that aren't readable by the average person but can be executed by a large bureaucratic machine. Note that the machine is subject to frequent single event upsets and has an executive that is prone to write it's own instructions.