You Are Part Of Your Home

David O. McKay once said that "No success can compensate for failure in the home." This statement is often quoted in the church because of its truthfullness; but what does success in the home looks like? Does it mean that everyone in the family has what they need to survive? Yes. Does it mean that the family is spiritually strong? Yes. Does it mean that everyone in the home is a good person that contributes to society? Yes. Something we must realize is that success in the home includes everyone in it, including yourself. You have not succeeded if your entire family is great, but you're rotten. Also, if you are the only person in your home, this still applies to you. No success in life is worth becoming a bad person and losing your salvation. President McKay could have additionally said, "No success can compensate for being a rotten human being."

Introspection is the key

Many prophets and apostles have told us that technology is not inherently good or evil but how we use it can be. There are many ways what we do can be evil. The most obvious is to do something inappropriate, such as viewing pornography. When things like this are happening, it is usually pretty obvious that what we are doing is wrong. A slightly more subtle problem is using it too much. Most commonly this is playing video games or using social networking sites excessively.  To know if we are using technology we need to be in touch with the spirit. Make sure you can still feel its influence during the activity.  Also ask yourself if you would be willing to act on a spiritual prompting if one came while you were playing. There are many other problems that can come from the misuse of technology, we can only know that we are misusing it through personal introspection.

Technology makes us stupid? HOGWASH!!!

2^n Heads Are Better Than One

Many computer scientists have studied how to make software in a more efficient way. Possibly the most famous of the theories to come from these studies is Brooks's Law: "Adding manpower to a late project makes it later". This theory is based on the cost of bringing new guys "up to speed" and the cost of communication among programmers. With these factors in mind this theory holds true.

But what happens when those factors are no longer present? In this modern age, communication has become cheap. Since Frederick Brooks wrote his law, many new communication tools have come into being, namely email, forums, blogging, instant messaging, and many more. For example, it has become easier to share what's on your mind through Facebook, text messages and blogging; and now news often spreads more quickly among normal citizens than through professional media. This phenomena has affected the software industry as well. Open source software is written by many developers across the entire globe; but because of easier communication, they can easily share ideas. Also, since the new developers on the project bring themselves up to speed, nobody else looses time doing it. Clearly Brooks's Law does not apply to software projects like this.

We should keep in mind that corporations and open source groups have different goals. Corporations are trying to make money with their software, while open source groups just want to make software. Similarly professional media outlets expect money for providing news; the general public just want to spread the word. We have seen a huge cut of the market share taken about from the professional news reporters. The cut from professional software corporations hasn't been so big, and I doubt it will grow too much more. Building software is a more profitable business than sharing the news. It seems that when money is not a concern, more people do get the job done better. So I guess it is true that 2 (or maybe a lot more) heads are better than one.

Why My Field Is Dominated By Men

Different things attract the attention of a woman than that of a man. Significantly more guys like to play with computers than girls do. Isn't it logical then that more men study computer science than women? Apparently not. Society seems to have developed this idea that because men and women are equal there must be an equal number of men and women in each field. They believe that less women in the field can only happen if stereotypes drive women away from it. This logic would also dictate that less boys buy dolls than girls only because society says that's weird. Women are fully capable of studying whatever they want.  They can, and do, choose what to study based on what interests them. This is the main reason less women study computer science.

Low Pay + Paper Bags = Better Congress

Linux is a peculiar operating system.  Unlike its competitors, it is open source software. Yet, despite the lack of corporate structure surrounding its development, many argue that it is the most powerful and most reliable operating system on the market.  That's because its developers actually want to work on it.  They don't do it for the money or the glory, they do it because they like writing code. In truth, everything gets done better when the worker does it because of interest and not for money. I wish congress cared more about their work and less about getting re-elected. To help this happen, I suggest that congressmen wear paper bags over their heads and receive much less pay.  If that were the case, people would become politicians because they want to do politics and help their community, not to get rich or famous.  If congressmen cared about their work as much as Linux programs do about Linux, congress would be a much more effective political body.

Knowledge Precedes Proper Use

Since the dawn of the computer, technology has never stopped growing.  Debates rage whenever a new technology comes onto the market.  Is it safe?  Is it wholesome?  Most of these technologies can be good for us if used well, and damaging if used poorly.  Many times, these technologies come with a steep learning curve.  Many are daunted by this and simply don't use them.  As a result, people become skeptical of technology.  They find the excessive use of technology wrong, antisocial, and damaging.  Granted, if used poorly technology can be wrong, antisocial, and damaging; but so can sticking your nose in a book or writing everything down on paper in excess.  Education is the name of the game.  We need to proactively learn as much as we can about all these new technologies that emerge.  How can they benefit our lives?  How can they be used poorly and harm our lives?  If we learn all we can about technology, we will find our lives will be enriched by it.

Patent B Major

Patents are great for inventors; they make it so an inventor has sole rights to things he invents. Copyrights do the same thing, but are used for artistic works. A key difference between patents and copyrights it that even when an author has a copyright, he doesn't own the pieces he used: namely words. Even when the author creates a new word or phrase, other authors can use them all they wish. It is only once the author has put many of these small pieces together that he has any claim to ownership. Writing software is very similar. We all use very small pieces to make a greater whole.  It would be foolish to give a patent to someone for a small piece that many other people are going to use. That would be the same as giving a composer the patent for the chord of B Major.  If nobody could use that chord ever again, the music industry would suffer.  For that exact reason, the software industry suffers because of unneeded patents.

If You Want Something Done Right...

A common saying states: "If you want something done right, do it yourself." In other words: "don't trust anyone other than yourself". Have you ever had a boss that didn't trust you to do things right? He probably "checked in" on you every few hours.  That's called micro-managing and it happens because your boss doesn't trust you. This is but one example of this bad mentality and we display this distrust in many ways. Instead of doing everything ourselves, we should take responsibility for problems we see. A key part of this is to recognize that the people around us are a resource, not a hindrance. Once we see this, we can more effectively fix problems we face because we have others helping us.

The most powerful moment of Cliff Stoll's The Cuckoo's Egg came after he had just spoken to the FBI about a hacker in his system. They refused to do anything about his hacker problem. It was in that moment that he realized it was his responsibility to make sure this guy was caught. The FBI, CIA, and NSA had all refused to do anything. So he took it upon himself. He didn't decide that if the hacker was going to get caught, he had to do it himself. Instead he used the resources at his disposal to make sure the hacker was eventually caught. A key thing he did was pester the FBI to do something. He did this because he knew they could get the guy, they just needed motivation.  He didn't do it because he wanted to make sure they did it a certain way. This is in stark contrast to your micro-managing boss.

We will have similar decisions in our lives. If you see a bug in your companies' code, but not in the part you're responsible for, there are three things you can do. You could say, "It's not my problem, someone else will take care of it". Another option is to dive into the code for hours on end until you find it yourself, possibly breaking other things in the process. Or you can research the bug, tell the responsible programmer your findings and then follow up with him until it's fixed. The last option is obviously the best; you took responsibility for the bug, but realized others were more qualified to fix it and sought their help. If we all approach problems in this manner, our companies, relationships, and societies will be better off.

The Key To Success

After conducting many thorough studies (OK, not really), I have determined that there is one trait that can guarantee the success of a businessman:  the ability to see the future.  Sadly enough, no one can do that. This means that nobody is guaranteed success; even the best businessmen.  Obviously, there is a lot of skill involved in doing business; but any success received comes, at least in part, because of some luck.  For example, if Digital Research had signed with IBM, Microsoft would not be what it is today.  If Apple had never won an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft, Apple could have died years ago.  Two of the greatest software companies ever are what they are now because of luck.  On he other side, Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari, didn't invest in Apple because he didn't think Steve Jobs could cut it as a CEO.  If he could see the future, he could have avoided that bad luck.  So the moral of the story is: unless you can see the future, no success is a given.

Article that inspired this post:  Atari founder: Tim Cook isn't the next Steve Jobs

Watching LDS Twitter feed during conference

I watched the twitter feed for #LDSCONF during the Saturday morning conference.  It was a really interesting experience.  At the beginning of the session it was mostly distracting, since all the tweets were just people saying how happy they were that conference was here.  As the speakers got started though, I thought the experience improved.  When I would miss a cool quote, I was bound to see it latter on.  For example, I missed it when President Monson announced that church membership pass 15 million; but twitter made sure I learned it.  I was also able to see how others were interpreting the talks, which gave me a different perspective on what the speakers were saying.  It was still distracting at times, but the benefits might have outweighed the cost of being distracted.  I say might because it was a new experience and I'm not sure how I feel about it yet.

Why I Don't Do Family History

The church has invested time and money into making family history websites easier to use.  This was a brilliant move and they succeeded in their goal.  Unfortunately for me, however, family history never was hard for me because of interfaces that were difficult to use.  My problem is that I hate stating things as fact unless I know they are.  This comes from many simple rules of the programming world: never start coding without knowing what you will code and no software is bug free.  So when I sit down to do family history and I come across conflicting records, I will probably end up doing nothing.  This is a lousy excuse to not do my family history work and follow the prophet.  I shouldn't be scared to enter information that might be inaccurate.  Only a foolish manager would not release a product just because he isn't sure all the bugs have been fixed.  I need to learn how to make decisions even if I don't know exactly what will happen if I take a certain action.  If I can learn this, it will help me as a software developer, and more importantly, it will help me do my family history work.

The evolution of the space industry.

I often ask myself what it was like when the first computers were created.  Better yet, what about the first personal computer?  Did the early PC owners realize they were carrying a machine into their house that would someday evolve into a common, everyday necessity?  Today I find myself asking those same questions, but this time I might be the one seeing history unfold.  This weekend Optical Sciences Corporation became the second private company to send a rocket into space.  Obviously I didn't take the rocket into my home, but could I be in the same boat as the first users of the computer?  Is the news from this weekend just the first step in a booming space travel market?  I fairly doubt we will ever have personal space crafts; heck, we probably won’t even have public space craft in the near future.  Space travel has evolved much slower than the personal computer has.  We landed on the moon 44 years ago; the Altair didn't even exist at the time.  Yet, if this weekend’s proceedings have the same effect on the space market that the Altair did on the computer market, I might be able to live on the moon when I retire.  

Article inspiring this post:  New commercial supply ship reaches space station

Lost Sight of What It's All About

Last semester I took a class that changed my life.  It wasn't a computer science course (computer science is my major), a student development course, or even a religion course.  It was a political science course.  It wasn't the subject matter that changed me; instead it was the professor: Professor Gilchrist.  The unique thing about him is that he actually challenged the way I thought.  You might say that goes with the territory in political science, but it was much more than that.  He was also one of the few teachers I've had that actually inspired me to be a better person; not even all of my religion teachers have pulled that one off.  He is revered by most of his students because he actually cares about them and, more importantly, about their learning.  Now guess where he is teaching this semester.  Utah State actually.  Did he go there because he wanted a change of scene?  No.  Was he sick of BYU?  No, as a matter of fact he loves BYU.  He's gone because he didn't make tenure here.  Why didn't he?  He didn't publish enough papers.  This is a tragedy: an institution of higher learning firing a professor that actually helps students learn.  What makes it worse is that his replacement will probably just write papers that will only be read by his peers.  This is one of many examples that shows that our education system does not value what it should.  Teachers are most valuable for having doctorates and published papers, rather than having a genuine interest in their students.  Students are expected to learn how to "regurgitate" information rather than how to think in a rational and innovative manner.  Universities were created to help educate the people; now they simply want to be famous and make money.  It seems they have lost sight of what it truly is all about.

Article that inspired this piece of work:  Adjuncts, lecturers and professors, oh my!

The Challenge of Our Lives

One of the biggest challenges of our lives is to learn moderation.  We must learn how much value each and every thing can bring into our lives.  However, the value of all things has a limit.  Studying our scriptures, praying, and going to church are by far some of the best things we can do; so why are we not always at church, praying, and reading our scriptures?  Because the value of those activities ceases to increase after a time!  We need to eat, sleep, relax, and do so many more things!  Most technologies and activities we see can be good for us.  This includes learning how to play a musical instrument, playing a video game, or eating food; but any one of these things can start to damage our lives if done in excess.  Video games, as they are stereotyped to do, make it so we don't socialize when we play them too much; but playing your musical instrument too much would have the same effect.  Because of this, we should never reject something entirely, or judge someone who participates in a certain activity.  Few things are inherently evil; and if we can moderate them, all things can benefit our life.