[ucodegen]

[quote larrylujack]
no offense, dude, but software engineers are a dime a dozen…literally, so don’t take yerself so seriously….
[/quote]
Sounds like typical MBA think. Completely ignores skill levels, experience, and ‘rate of production’. Rate of production is hard to quantify, though the most ‘popular’ and overused is SLOC/hr. The reason why SLOC/hr is not that good is that some software engineers can write the same function in software with far fewer SLOC than another.

Kind of reminds me of my experience where I was laid off. A new VP of the division came in and chopped the ‘highly compensated’ software engineers and other ‘highly compensated’ employees, except ironically; management layers. He completely ignored the capability of the people he laid off and didn’t allow projects to ‘bid’ on people being laid off on the condition that they release a certain number of their own.

The result was a lot of bad feeling, since the “laid off” were long-timers that were responsible for a lot of what the company had come up and were the ‘go-to’ people for technical questions.. what is the use of company loyalty? Now the company has re-hired several of these people, including myself, as ‘consultants’ or ‘part time’ to get the work complete. Some of them refused to come back to work for the company.

The whole purpose of the layoff was to reduce the cost structure so that the burden rate was less.. after the layoff, the burden rate actually went up — oops.

[quote flu]
even with some of the easiest/stupid shit totally fvcked up like method names completely misspelled (getRecievedPakcetTipe()) in a public API you give to customers, after supposedly it was code/design reviewed, blocking/synchronous calls across networks with high latency ???
[/quote]
The last one, is one I have seen too much of.. as well as very poorly structured code. Code that almost looked like.. “well, lets try this.. no that didn’t work.. lets try this.. no that didn’t work either” style of software engineering. I have also run across several multiprocessor race conditions in code, not protected by a semaphore/guard.

When I was going through College, I used to TA software engineering courses. Through experience, I found that some people had an innate ability, some people were more ‘mechanical’ about it and others just could not ‘get it’.

[ucodegen]

[quote larrylujack]
no offense, dude, but software engineers are a dime a dozen…literally, so don’t take yerself so seriously….
[/quote]
Sounds like typical MBA think. Completely ignores skill levels, experience, and ‘rate of production’. Rate of production is hard to quantify, though the most ‘popular’ and overused is SLOC/hr. The reason why SLOC/hr is not that good is that some software engineers can write the same function in software with far fewer SLOC than another.

Kind of reminds me of my experience where I was laid off. A new VP of the division came in and chopped the ‘highly compensated’ software engineers and other ‘highly compensated’ employees, except ironically; management layers. He completely ignored the capability of the people he laid off and didn’t allow projects to ‘bid’ on people being laid off on the condition that they release a certain number of their own.

The result was a lot of bad feeling, since the “laid off” were long-timers that were responsible for a lot of what the company had come up and were the ‘go-to’ people for technical questions.. what is the use of company loyalty? Now the company has re-hired several of these people, including myself, as ‘consultants’ or ‘part time’ to get the work complete. Some of them refused to come back to work for the company.

The whole purpose of the layoff was to reduce the cost structure so that the burden rate was less.. after the layoff, the burden rate actually went up — oops.

[quote flu]
even with some of the easiest/stupid shit totally fvcked up like method names completely misspelled (getRecievedPakcetTipe()) in a public API you give to customers, after supposedly it was code/design reviewed, blocking/synchronous calls across networks with high latency ???
[/quote]
The last one, is one I have seen too much of.. as well as very poorly structured code. Code that almost looked like.. “well, lets try this.. no that didn’t work.. lets try this.. no that didn’t work either” style of software engineering. I have also run across several multiprocessor race conditions in code, not protected by a semaphore/guard.

When I was going through College, I used to TA software engineering courses. Through experience, I found that some people had an innate ability, some people were more ‘mechanical’ about it and others just could not ‘get it’.

[ucodegen]

[quote larrylujack]
no offense, dude, but software engineers are a dime a dozen…literally, so don’t take yerself so seriously….
[/quote]
Sounds like typical MBA think. Completely ignores skill levels, experience, and ‘rate of production’. Rate of production is hard to quantify, though the most ‘popular’ and overused is SLOC/hr. The reason why SLOC/hr is not that good is that some software engineers can write the same function in software with far fewer SLOC than another.

Kind of reminds me of my experience where I was laid off. A new VP of the division came in and chopped the ‘highly compensated’ software engineers and other ‘highly compensated’ employees, except ironically; management layers. He completely ignored the capability of the people he laid off and didn’t allow projects to ‘bid’ on people being laid off on the condition that they release a certain number of their own.

The result was a lot of bad feeling, since the “laid off” were long-timers that were responsible for a lot of what the company had come up and were the ‘go-to’ people for technical questions.. what is the use of company loyalty? Now the company has re-hired several of these people, including myself, as ‘consultants’ or ‘part time’ to get the work complete. Some of them refused to come back to work for the company.

The whole purpose of the layoff was to reduce the cost structure so that the burden rate was less.. after the layoff, the burden rate actually went up — oops.

[quote flu]
even with some of the easiest/stupid shit totally fvcked up like method names completely misspelled (getRecievedPakcetTipe()) in a public API you give to customers, after supposedly it was code/design reviewed, blocking/synchronous calls across networks with high latency ???
[/quote]
The last one, is one I have seen too much of.. as well as very poorly structured code. Code that almost looked like.. “well, lets try this.. no that didn’t work.. lets try this.. no that didn’t work either” style of software engineering. I have also run across several multiprocessor race conditions in code, not protected by a semaphore/guard.

When I was going through College, I used to TA software engineering courses. Through experience, I found that some people had an innate ability, some people were more ‘mechanical’ about it and others just could not ‘get it’.

[ucodegen]

Is that little Black Mountain in the background (with the antennas)? If it is, this may be the area that used to be GD property that they sold. The property had ‘green clay’ as the ground composition. The problem with ‘green clay’ is that with a little bit of water, it become a very ‘slick’ clay.

I wonder about the other houses in that area as well..

[quote 5yearwaiter]
The engineers and contractors worked on all these homes almost 9 months long time and dig the entire bottom of house and rewire or reengineered the entire house and rebuilt almost. Do you(we) still consider about these homes still have foundation deffected ones?
[/quote]

Depends upon what they did. If you are going to ‘dig the entire bottom of the house’, it is easier and cheaper to level the house and then rebuild. It is very hard to dig out under a slab house to completely rebuild the foundation. Does anyone have photos of the work-in-progress? It would be interesting to know what exactly was the original problem and what was done to remedy it.

[ucodegen]

Is that little Black Mountain in the background (with the antennas)? If it is, this may be the area that used to be GD property that they sold. The property had ‘green clay’ as the ground composition. The problem with ‘green clay’ is that with a little bit of water, it become a very ‘slick’ clay.

I wonder about the other houses in that area as well..

[quote 5yearwaiter]
The engineers and contractors worked on all these homes almost 9 months long time and dig the entire bottom of house and rewire or reengineered the entire house and rebuilt almost. Do you(we) still consider about these homes still have foundation deffected ones?
[/quote]

Depends upon what they did. If you are going to ‘dig the entire bottom of the house’, it is easier and cheaper to level the house and then rebuild. It is very hard to dig out under a slab house to completely rebuild the foundation. Does anyone have photos of the work-in-progress? It would be interesting to know what exactly was the original problem and what was done to remedy it.

[ucodegen]

Is that little Black Mountain in the background (with the antennas)? If it is, this may be the area that used to be GD property that they sold. The property had ‘green clay’ as the ground composition. The problem with ‘green clay’ is that with a little bit of water, it become a very ‘slick’ clay.

I wonder about the other houses in that area as well..

[quote 5yearwaiter]
The engineers and contractors worked on all these homes almost 9 months long time and dig the entire bottom of house and rewire or reengineered the entire house and rebuilt almost. Do you(we) still consider about these homes still have foundation deffected ones?
[/quote]

Depends upon what they did. If you are going to ‘dig the entire bottom of the house’, it is easier and cheaper to level the house and then rebuild. It is very hard to dig out under a slab house to completely rebuild the foundation. Does anyone have photos of the work-in-progress? It would be interesting to know what exactly was the original problem and what was done to remedy it.

[ucodegen]

Is that little Black Mountain in the background (with the antennas)? If it is, this may be the area that used to be GD property that they sold. The property had ‘green clay’ as the ground composition. The problem with ‘green clay’ is that with a little bit of water, it become a very ‘slick’ clay.

I wonder about the other houses in that area as well..

[quote 5yearwaiter]
The engineers and contractors worked on all these homes almost 9 months long time and dig the entire bottom of house and rewire or reengineered the entire house and rebuilt almost. Do you(we) still consider about these homes still have foundation deffected ones?
[/quote]

Depends upon what they did. If you are going to ‘dig the entire bottom of the house’, it is easier and cheaper to level the house and then rebuild. It is very hard to dig out under a slab house to completely rebuild the foundation. Does anyone have photos of the work-in-progress? It would be interesting to know what exactly was the original problem and what was done to remedy it.

[ucodegen]

Is that little Black Mountain in the background (with the antennas)? If it is, this may be the area that used to be GD property that they sold. The property had ‘green clay’ as the ground composition. The problem with ‘green clay’ is that with a little bit of water, it become a very ‘slick’ clay.

I wonder about the other houses in that area as well..

[quote 5yearwaiter]
The engineers and contractors worked on all these homes almost 9 months long time and dig the entire bottom of house and rewire or reengineered the entire house and rebuilt almost. Do you(we) still consider about these homes still have foundation deffected ones?
[/quote]

Depends upon what they did. If you are going to ‘dig the entire bottom of the house’, it is easier and cheaper to level the house and then rebuild. It is very hard to dig out under a slab house to completely rebuild the foundation. Does anyone have photos of the work-in-progress? It would be interesting to know what exactly was the original problem and what was done to remedy it.

[ucodegen]

[quote SD Realtor]
The lender or loan servicing company can discuss the loan ONLY WITH THE HOMEOWNER OR WHOEVER THE HOMEOWNER GIVES THIRD PARTY AUTHORIZATION LETTER TO THAT LOAN SERVICER. Thus it is ILLEGAL for the lender or loan servicer to discuss anything with anyone else. Plain and simple.
[/quote]

Once the property goes into foreclosure, the situation changes. The problem is in the negotiated short sales. The lenders should also be requiring that the ‘homesitter’ gives the loan servicer/lender the right to discuss house prices, conditions and availability with interested parties (possibly with some restrictions). If the ‘homesitter’ wishing to do the short sale doesn’t want to give the lender this ability, immediately kick it over to foreclosure.

I suspect the real problem is that lenders/loan servicers were not really prepared for a loan delinquency rate of the current scale. On foreclosures, the lenders are unprepared to watch their listing agents to make sure that there are no ‘behind the back’ deals. They ‘just want to move the properties’. In addition to the banks being a bit ‘out to lunch’ on how to handle the size of the current delinquencies, I suspect that a moderate amount of ‘bad elements’ managed to make their way into the RE Broker/Agent pool during the Real Estate ‘heydays’..

Requiring a listing to ‘season’ before closure is a good idea, but immediately listing it as ‘pending’ during the ‘seasoning’ period is possibly a way they dance around it.

[quote CA renter]
That is exactly the problem if they ever want to eliminate or reduce the fraud. If the “homeowners” have no equity, the lenders (and their agents) should be the only parties controlling the sale/disposition of the property.
[/quote]
Cant use the having ‘no equity’ as a reason. Who values it as having no equity? If the ‘homeowner’ is current on the loan, the loan is in arrears and revealing home sale info potentially reveals a persons credit state. The real qualification should be that if the ‘homeowner’ wants to do a short sale, the bank has to be ‘at the table’. This is because the ‘homeowner’ is asking the bank to take a loss on a secured loan. The real problem is that the lenders are not handling it well. They have the ability to force the short sale to go the way they want. The lenders can require the ability to discuss the property with potential bidders outside of the ‘sort sellers broker’, otherwise all short sale offers brought to them will be refused (Just make it a matter of the lenders policy on short sales).

[ucodegen]

[quote SD Realtor]
The lender or loan servicing company can discuss the loan ONLY WITH THE HOMEOWNER OR WHOEVER THE HOMEOWNER GIVES THIRD PARTY AUTHORIZATION LETTER TO THAT LOAN SERVICER. Thus it is ILLEGAL for the lender or loan servicer to discuss anything with anyone else. Plain and simple.
[/quote]

Once the property goes into foreclosure, the situation changes. The problem is in the negotiated short sales. The lenders should also be requiring that the ‘homesitter’ gives the loan servicer/lender the right to discuss house prices, conditions and availability with interested parties (possibly with some restrictions). If the ‘homesitter’ wishing to do the short sale doesn’t want to give the lender this ability, immediately kick it over to foreclosure.

I suspect the real problem is that lenders/loan servicers were not really prepared for a loan delinquency rate of the current scale. On foreclosures, the lenders are unprepared to watch their listing agents to make sure that there are no ‘behind the back’ deals. They ‘just want to move the properties’. In addition to the banks being a bit ‘out to lunch’ on how to handle the size of the current delinquencies, I suspect that a moderate amount of ‘bad elements’ managed to make their way into the RE Broker/Agent pool during the Real Estate ‘heydays’..

Requiring a listing to ‘season’ before closure is a good idea, but immediately listing it as ‘pending’ during the ‘seasoning’ period is possibly a way they dance around it.

[quote CA renter]
That is exactly the problem if they ever want to eliminate or reduce the fraud. If the “homeowners” have no equity, the lenders (and their agents) should be the only parties controlling the sale/disposition of the property.
[/quote]
Cant use the having ‘no equity’ as a reason. Who values it as having no equity? If the ‘homeowner’ is current on the loan, the loan is in arrears and revealing home sale info potentially reveals a persons credit state. The real qualification should be that if the ‘homeowner’ wants to do a short sale, the bank has to be ‘at the table’. This is because the ‘homeowner’ is asking the bank to take a loss on a secured loan. The real problem is that the lenders are not handling it well. They have the ability to force the short sale to go the way they want. The lenders can require the ability to discuss the property with potential bidders outside of the ‘sort sellers broker’, otherwise all short sale offers brought to them will be refused (Just make it a matter of the lenders policy on short sales).

[ucodegen]

[quote SD Realtor]
The lender or loan servicing company can discuss the loan ONLY WITH THE HOMEOWNER OR WHOEVER THE HOMEOWNER GIVES THIRD PARTY AUTHORIZATION LETTER TO THAT LOAN SERVICER. Thus it is ILLEGAL for the lender or loan servicer to discuss anything with anyone else. Plain and simple.
[/quote]

Once the property goes into foreclosure, the situation changes. The problem is in the negotiated short sales. The lenders should also be requiring that the ‘homesitter’ gives the loan servicer/lender the right to discuss house prices, conditions and availability with interested parties (possibly with some restrictions). If the ‘homesitter’ wishing to do the short sale doesn’t want to give the lender this ability, immediately kick it over to foreclosure.

I suspect the real problem is that lenders/loan servicers were not really prepared for a loan delinquency rate of the current scale. On foreclosures, the lenders are unprepared to watch their listing agents to make sure that there are no ‘behind the back’ deals. They ‘just want to move the properties’. In addition to the banks being a bit ‘out to lunch’ on how to handle the size of the current delinquencies, I suspect that a moderate amount of ‘bad elements’ managed to make their way into the RE Broker/Agent pool during the Real Estate ‘heydays’..

Requiring a listing to ‘season’ before closure is a good idea, but immediately listing it as ‘pending’ during the ‘seasoning’ period is possibly a way they dance around it.

[quote CA renter]
That is exactly the problem if they ever want to eliminate or reduce the fraud. If the “homeowners” have no equity, the lenders (and their agents) should be the only parties controlling the sale/disposition of the property.
[/quote]
Cant use the having ‘no equity’ as a reason. Who values it as having no equity? If the ‘homeowner’ is current on the loan, the loan is in arrears and revealing home sale info potentially reveals a persons credit state. The real qualification should be that if the ‘homeowner’ wants to do a short sale, the bank has to be ‘at the table’. This is because the ‘homeowner’ is asking the bank to take a loss on a secured loan. The real problem is that the lenders are not handling it well. They have the ability to force the short sale to go the way they want. The lenders can require the ability to discuss the property with potential bidders outside of the ‘sort sellers broker’, otherwise all short sale offers brought to them will be refused (Just make it a matter of the lenders policy on short sales).

[ucodegen]

[quote SD Realtor]
The lender or loan servicing company can discuss the loan ONLY WITH THE HOMEOWNER OR WHOEVER THE HOMEOWNER GIVES THIRD PARTY AUTHORIZATION LETTER TO THAT LOAN SERVICER. Thus it is ILLEGAL for the lender or loan servicer to discuss anything with anyone else. Plain and simple.
[/quote]

Once the property goes into foreclosure, the situation changes. The problem is in the negotiated short sales. The lenders should also be requiring that the ‘homesitter’ gives the loan servicer/lender the right to discuss house prices, conditions and availability with interested parties (possibly with some restrictions). If the ‘homesitter’ wishing to do the short sale doesn’t want to give the lender this ability, immediately kick it over to foreclosure.

I suspect the real problem is that lenders/loan servicers were not really prepared for a loan delinquency rate of the current scale. On foreclosures, the lenders are unprepared to watch their listing agents to make sure that there are no ‘behind the back’ deals. They ‘just want to move the properties’. In addition to the banks being a bit ‘out to lunch’ on how to handle the size of the current delinquencies, I suspect that a moderate amount of ‘bad elements’ managed to make their way into the RE Broker/Agent pool during the Real Estate ‘heydays’..

Requiring a listing to ‘season’ before closure is a good idea, but immediately listing it as ‘pending’ during the ‘seasoning’ period is possibly a way they dance around it.

[quote CA renter]
That is exactly the problem if they ever want to eliminate or reduce the fraud. If the “homeowners” have no equity, the lenders (and their agents) should be the only parties controlling the sale/disposition of the property.
[/quote]
Cant use the having ‘no equity’ as a reason. Who values it as having no equity? If the ‘homeowner’ is current on the loan, the loan is in arrears and revealing home sale info potentially reveals a persons credit state. The real qualification should be that if the ‘homeowner’ wants to do a short sale, the bank has to be ‘at the table’. This is because the ‘homeowner’ is asking the bank to take a loss on a secured loan. The real problem is that the lenders are not handling it well. They have the ability to force the short sale to go the way they want. The lenders can require the ability to discuss the property with potential bidders outside of the ‘sort sellers broker’, otherwise all short sale offers brought to them will be refused (Just make it a matter of the lenders policy on short sales).

[ucodegen]

[quote SD Realtor]
The lender or loan servicing company can discuss the loan ONLY WITH THE HOMEOWNER OR WHOEVER THE HOMEOWNER GIVES THIRD PARTY AUTHORIZATION LETTER TO THAT LOAN SERVICER. Thus it is ILLEGAL for the lender or loan servicer to discuss anything with anyone else. Plain and simple.
[/quote]

Once the property goes into foreclosure, the situation changes. The problem is in the negotiated short sales. The lenders should also be requiring that the ‘homesitter’ gives the loan servicer/lender the right to discuss house prices, conditions and availability with interested parties (possibly with some restrictions). If the ‘homesitter’ wishing to do the short sale doesn’t want to give the lender this ability, immediately kick it over to foreclosure.

I suspect the real problem is that lenders/loan servicers were not really prepared for a loan delinquency rate of the current scale. On foreclosures, the lenders are unprepared to watch their listing agents to make sure that there are no ‘behind the back’ deals. They ‘just want to move the properties’. In addition to the banks being a bit ‘out to lunch’ on how to handle the size of the current delinquencies, I suspect that a moderate amount of ‘bad elements’ managed to make their way into the RE Broker/Agent pool during the Real Estate ‘heydays’..

Requiring a listing to ‘season’ before closure is a good idea, but immediately listing it as ‘pending’ during the ‘seasoning’ period is possibly a way they dance around it.

[quote CA renter]
That is exactly the problem if they ever want to eliminate or reduce the fraud. If the “homeowners” have no equity, the lenders (and their agents) should be the only parties controlling the sale/disposition of the property.
[/quote]
Cant use the having ‘no equity’ as a reason. Who values it as having no equity? If the ‘homeowner’ is current on the loan, the loan is in arrears and revealing home sale info potentially reveals a persons credit state. The real qualification should be that if the ‘homeowner’ wants to do a short sale, the bank has to be ‘at the table’. This is because the ‘homeowner’ is asking the bank to take a loss on a secured loan. The real problem is that the lenders are not handling it well. They have the ability to force the short sale to go the way they want. The lenders can require the ability to discuss the property with potential bidders outside of the ‘sort sellers broker’, otherwise all short sale offers brought to them will be refused (Just make it a matter of the lenders policy on short sales).

[ucodegen]

The Nikon DSLRs are an interesting bunch. Some of them support the older lenses.. some of them can’t. The older AF lenses used a drive from the camera body to focus the lens. Newer Nikons have the lens AF motor in the lens body.

D90 – This has the in-body motor drive for older AF lenses. It is also supposed to be able to handle the old manual ‘F’ lenses. You may need to switch the camera body to manual focus – as well as run the shutter/aperture in manual.

D40 – Different beast. It does not have the ‘in-body’ focus motor. It is only designed for AF-I/AF-S type lenses. As for the older all manual F mounts, I am uncertain as to whether they will work with a D40.

NOTE: To use the old F mount lenses on these bodies, you may need to change the switch setting on the lens that controls the aperture step down when a shot is taken. It tends to be a small switch near the aperture ring with the switch moving forwards/backwards.

[ucodegen]

The Nikon DSLRs are an interesting bunch. Some of them support the older lenses.. some of them can’t. The older AF lenses used a drive from the camera body to focus the lens. Newer Nikons have the lens AF motor in the lens body.

D90 – This has the in-body motor drive for older AF lenses. It is also supposed to be able to handle the old manual ‘F’ lenses. You may need to switch the camera body to manual focus – as well as run the shutter/aperture in manual.

D40 – Different beast. It does not have the ‘in-body’ focus motor. It is only designed for AF-I/AF-S type lenses. As for the older all manual F mounts, I am uncertain as to whether they will work with a D40.

NOTE: To use the old F mount lenses on these bodies, you may need to change the switch setting on the lens that controls the aperture step down when a shot is taken. It tends to be a small switch near the aperture ring with the switch moving forwards/backwards.

[Author]

Posts