Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
We have to get people back into the mode of realizing rules and following them, automatically. We know what happens when people don't follow rules. Lay, Skilling and others not only lined their own pockets they did so at our expense and the millions of people who depended on their retirement accounts to get them through their golden years.
|
As cliché as it may be, you're comparing appples to oranges. The crimes perpetrated by the Enron execs were by no means victimless. Lay and Skilling lined their pockets, but at some level, they must have known that what they were doing was wrong.
Personally, I've always been one to question authority. That's just the way I am, and it's not likely to change. I go to a school with a philosophy that rejects arbitrary authority. If you can show me someone who would be hurt by a team re-using previous years' code, I'm all ears. However, FIRST does seem to be asking us to reinvent the wheel each year (to a certain extent) while at the same time giving us large sections of code that we're not even meant to look at, much less understand. How is it a valuable use of time for teams to re-type code from last year?
Furthermore, if FIRST is looking to
really level the playing field between rookie teams and veterans, there's a whole lot more that they could be doing. Veteran teams, if you're really looking to burn their time, could be forced to fill out long questionaires during each build season. How is this better than asking teams to re-type code?
To those who are saying that it's silly for FIRST to require teams to re-invent the wheel (as chris31 seems to be saying), do you think that this is what the rule says?
Thanks for all your collective input,
Paul