|
Ha yes, I feel your pain......
Contractor here who's worked on both government, NHS and UK Military projects in the past.
It's soul destroying at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Has to do with "ownership".
I'll "own" my projects; so there are no issues.
But once someone else "takes control", I can no longer be responsible.
If that other party won't "own", then the "technical debt" accumulates.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see what ownership has to do with understanding your tools 
This was code written by the team that worked on it from the start and they were still writing it like that.
Ownership or not, you won't write code like that if you know what you're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
True story:
- I think we should go .NET.
- No; Java.
- Me: Struts; Swing; Beans; Eclipse; JBoss; Linux; Apache; etc; Java-related courses out of town...
- (weeks later) OK ... you can use .NET.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
We have pluralsight licences for everyone and I set up a bunch of courses that they have to take within a certain period of time. Each employee can block out 2-4 hours per week for study time on the company dime. Seems like a reasonable approach.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, in most companies I have worked for, keeping current was seen as a bad thing, something that distracts you from the job currently at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
My employer doesn't stimulate anything, I stay up-to-date because I want to. Sure, my company does shelve money for seminars, trainings and such, but I have to become active demanding money for that training myself. Not that this was a bad thing, I think that this laissez-faire aproach fits best with intelligent people.
|
|
|
|
|
Shame on your old company, good for your current company.
We encourage people to learn and attend training classes, and to share what they learned.
IN FACT, that is the one requirement. If the company pays for the training/seminar, then you
have to write up a summary email with a few links so others can either ask questions, or learn
something from the experience.
I have seen the most useless people take the most training (we called it hiding in training), and I have seen some really bright people go in waves. Spending up to 2 years not training, then digging into a new technology.
And $500 or 500 Euros is NOTHING. Most of these things start above this price. Then there are potential flights, and hotel stays. No wonder nobody used this. It was a fake offer.
|
|
|
|
|
There you have it: in your "free" time means on your "own" time.
Nobody likes studying "for work"; on their own time.
There was a time when one was sent "out of town" for a course (which included meals, hotels; maybe a car).
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
I happen to like programming so, yeah, I study quite a lot in my free time.
My employer profits and then I profit (being the best they have tends to give leverage) 
|
|
|
|
|
Being the "best" isn't always what it's cracked out to be.
The "budget" needs to be split amongst everybody; meaning, "if I give you x then they ONLY get y and then they are unhappy, etc.".
It then becomes tests of wills.
(If you happen to actually like what you are currently working on, then that's a different story; but that will get "old" too after a while if you like to stretch; or see new faces).
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
modified 14-Mar-18 11:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
Never had any trouble with budgets.
More that I'm willing to try new stuff and better the application while coworkers are afraid of innovation and get stressed out and/or angry.
I've had a coworker scolding at me because he literally couldn't read some C# syntax I had used (I used some delegates, nothing fancy).
Ok, that guy was really bad at programming and at social skills, a terrible combination 
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
The problem was the amount of colors in the new file...
Thank you all!
First of all I'm looking for advice and in the best case a BMP files info extraction tool, I'm not asking about a programin solution...
I'm updating the logo in the invoice report, the current one is an old file that is the preview of the final logo we bought and we want to get the final one in our documentations...
The issue here is that when we try to print the invoice with the new logo, we print it to a PDF file, it looks blurry (in the display and in the paper).
When we use the old logo it gets printed correctly...
How would you see the differences between the BMP files we are using?
Right clicking the file and getting properties is giving me 180x180pixels and 24Bits deep in both files...
What else can be different to get this result?
Thank you all!
modified 9-Mar-18 5:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you stick 'em both up on Dropbox?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I can, but in OneDrive... I hope this won't be a problem...
Two BMP files...[^]
Logo.bmp works.
LogoLW.bmp doesn't.
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
From what I can see, the two files are identical in terms of metadata: 180x180, 96.012 ppi, RGB 8 bits/channel.
But... the LW version has a smaller image in the centre of the BPM (i.e. more white space round it), and the non-LW version has a "pinkish" colour drop shadow (#FFDBF2) to the left of the text, while the anti-aliasing on the LW version is more pronounced.
I'd guess that the LW version non-text part would look more blurred if it gets size changed, while the non-LW might get a little nasty on the text.
Personally, I try to create BIG versions of logos, and then use the presentation app to reduce them in size - I hate "blowing up" images, they never look right!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's what I made, we got a vecorial file and then I scaled it to the right size.
The issue was with the amount of colors... now reduced at 256 it works well...
I had no idea that one could specify the amount of colors... 
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
I used IrfanView - information to compare both files, they are almost identical except for the 'Number of unique colors'. logoLW.bmp has 1973, logo.bmp has only 685 unique colors.
The layout is a bit different, the logo in logo.bmp is a bit larger.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try to specify somewhere the number of colours... 
I have to see how to do it...
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
In IrfanView, which is a free tool, you can do this with 'Image - Decrease color depth - Custom', with a maximum of 256 colors, but this will work for your logo I think 
|
|
|
|
|
Done, it worked like charm! 
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
I have used IfranView like Rick and showed them zoomed side by side.
The colours in the company name of the LW logo are not as unique as in the old logo (more colours) and the text is blurry.
Both logos look like being hand made and scanned. I suggest to re-create the logo using a DTP or painting application.
|
|
|
|
|
Both come from a vectorial file... probably the conversion has not been the best one...
I'll try to improve that... now that I know that the amount of colors is important for that old software...
Thank you for the recommendation!
|
|
|
|
|
You are welcome.
My hand made assumption was mainly from the old logo which contains some "noses". You might try to convert the vector format again. A fixed sized logo should be as sharp as possible and contain only unique colours (besides it contains colour gradients or a blurry effect is wanted).
|
|
|
|
|
ImageJ, subtract Image.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
