<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The case against passion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/</link>
	<description>Articles on random topics in Programming, Systems Administration, Academia and Industry by Mark Dennehy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:39:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: KT</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-482</link>
		<dc:creator>KT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-482</guid>
		<description>This post expressed what I&#039;ve been thinking ever since I started my career and started reading Joel Splosky (which happened about the same time).  In my collegiate studies I knew that participating in two club sports and being an English writing major as well as a computer science major made me a better programmer.  It&#039;s why a liberal arts education used to be the only kind of bachelor education offered.  In my career today I know that spending time reading widely, discussing a variety of issues tenaciously, and taking time to relax while problems whiz around in the back of my mind helps me work efficiently in the time that I give to my job (so that instead of being half-brain dead working 70 hours a week I can put in an average work week and get my tasks completed on time).

The many commenters pointing out that passion and professionalism can co-exist may be right.  However they aren&#039;t answering the objection that a variety of passions co-existing side-by-side (say for writing poetry as well as programming) can actually help someone&#039;s professional life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This post expressed what I&#8217;ve been thinking ever since I started my career and started reading Joel Splosky (which happened about the same time).  In my collegiate studies I knew that participating in two club sports and being an English writing major as well as a computer science major made me a better programmer.  It&#8217;s why a liberal arts education used to be the only kind of bachelor education offered.  In my career today I know that spending time reading widely, discussing a variety of issues tenaciously, and taking time to relax while problems whiz around in the back of my mind helps me work efficiently in the time that I give to my job (so that instead of being half-brain dead working 70 hours a week I can put in an average work week and get my tasks completed on time).</p>
<p>The many commenters pointing out that passion and professionalism can co-exist may be right.  However they aren&#8217;t answering the objection that a variety of passions co-existing side-by-side (say for writing poetry as well as programming) can actually help someone&#8217;s professional life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-481</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-481</guid>
		<description>Programmers have to be professional when they are working in a 9 to 5 job whether they are passionate or not. What separates the passionate programmer from the professional only programmer is that the passionate programmer does not restrict himself to just the 9 to 5 job. He will be working on improving his skills even after his office job. And the reason he can do this is because he is passionate about programming.

Talking about all those famous programmers like Bill Gates, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak, etc, all were able to achieve success firstly because they are passionate programmers. There must have been times when they would have focussed sorely on programming for hours on end when it was needed to solve a particular programming problem. And you tend to spend hours on something only when you are passionate about it. Maybe being passionate tends to being addicted because only when you are addicted to something can you achieve mastery in that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Programmers have to be professional when they are working in a 9 to 5 job whether they are passionate or not. What separates the passionate programmer from the professional only programmer is that the passionate programmer does not restrict himself to just the 9 to 5 job. He will be working on improving his skills even after his office job. And the reason he can do this is because he is passionate about programming.</p>
<p>Talking about all those famous programmers like Bill Gates, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve Wozniak, etc, all were able to achieve success firstly because they are passionate programmers. There must have been times when they would have focussed sorely on programming for hours on end when it was needed to solve a particular programming problem. And you tend to spend hours on something only when you are passionate about it. Maybe being passionate tends to being addicted because only when you are addicted to something can you achieve mastery in that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Senthil Kumar</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-480</link>
		<dc:creator>Senthil Kumar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-480</guid>
		<description>Well said ,

After this post , i think i need to modify one of my blog post that wrote about &quot;what it takes to be a good programmer&quot;

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said ,</p>
<p>After this post , i think i need to modify one of my blog post that wrote about &#8220;what it takes to be a good programmer&#8221;</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg (Commentor NemesisVex on Soon Hui's blog)</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-479</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg (Commentor NemesisVex on Soon Hui's blog)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-479</guid>
		<description>I think the appropriate word here is gumption. Passion and professionalism may come into it, but really, both Soon and Mark are talking about having initiative and perhaps resourcefulnes. It&#039;s the degree of having that gumption which seems to be the debate.

The impression I get from Soon&#039;s post is that anything less than total dedication is insufficient for a sustained career. I don&#039;t believe that. You can have a measured sense of gumption which produces no less effectively than someone with an excess amount. I care for what I do, but I don&#039;t feel the need to be a gold medalist or the Tiger Woods of X. (Or the Tiger Woods of anything, given his current situation.)

At the same time, if I end up putting in my 10,000 hours and becoming a master of what I do, all the better.

Lacking that gumption is what would get a person into trouble.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the appropriate word here is gumption. Passion and professionalism may come into it, but really, both Soon and Mark are talking about having initiative and perhaps resourcefulnes. It&#8217;s the degree of having that gumption which seems to be the debate.</p>
<p>The impression I get from Soon&#8217;s post is that anything less than total dedication is insufficient for a sustained career. I don&#8217;t believe that. You can have a measured sense of gumption which produces no less effectively than someone with an excess amount. I care for what I do, but I don&#8217;t feel the need to be a gold medalist or the Tiger Woods of X. (Or the Tiger Woods of anything, given his current situation.)</p>
<p>At the same time, if I end up putting in my 10,000 hours and becoming a master of what I do, all the better.</p>
<p>Lacking that gumption is what would get a person into trouble.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ram</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator>ram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-477</guid>
		<description>passion is a motivator (aka trigger) -- process combines passion &amp; talent effectively &amp; efficiently into results -- without passion a process is an efficient algorithm with no inputs -- passion does not equate to talent either -- process cannot help if there is no talent -- talent needs to be there either explicit or implicit (an ability to gain it) -- process is like a great sportscar -- a love of driving (passion) &amp; a great machine (process) will not help win a race, if the driver is unable to master skills (talent) -- need all 3 -- process can accomodate lack of talent to a degree by providing a formal environment or lack of passion by providing opps to grow that passion thru improvement, but still depends on both</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>passion is a motivator (aka trigger) &#8212; process combines passion &amp; talent effectively &amp; efficiently into results &#8212; without passion a process is an efficient algorithm with no inputs &#8212; passion does not equate to talent either &#8212; process cannot help if there is no talent &#8212; talent needs to be there either explicit or implicit (an ability to gain it) &#8212; process is like a great sportscar &#8212; a love of driving (passion) &amp; a great machine (process) will not help win a race, if the driver is unable to master skills (talent) &#8212; need all 3 &#8212; process can accomodate lack of talent to a degree by providing a formal environment or lack of passion by providing opps to grow that passion thru improvement, but still depends on both</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niilo Tippler</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>Niilo Tippler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:51:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-476</guid>
		<description>Passion doesn&#039;t make a a great programmer, nor a professional one. Passion is what drives us to strive to be great. You might have a natural talent, or be a prodigy like Mozart, but if you don&#039;t have the passion for what you do then you will likely still be great at it, but it won&#039;t mean much to you inside. And I think that&#039;s where the line between passion and skill/talent get blurred. Many people believe that anyone with massive talent *must* love what they do, and thus be passionate about it, but that&#039;s not always the case.

I love what I do, I&#039;m passionate about computers and programming, and my love and interest in electronics directed me towards computers and I remember the first time I switched on my first computer, a Sinclair ZX-81, and typed in the lines of my first program, I knew this was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life as a career. I&#039;m passionate about what I do, but I don&#039;t always love it and sometimes wish I was doing something else, but that passion drives me continually to learn more, learn new skills, and always do the very best job I can, every time, even though I might not love the particular project I&#039;m working on, I can&#039;t do a second-rate job - the passion I have and the love for my work means that not striving to do my best is failing at my own values.

But, in the same way that the skill doesn&#039;t necessarily equate to passion, the existence of the passion doesn&#039;t automatically imply the skills are there to satisfy it. And that&#039;s where the drive for learning and improving yourself come in, and where the passion really helps. If you desperately want to learn how to do something because you have the passion driving you then you will learn it, and you continue to learn more and more new things which in turn feed your passion and drive to better yourself and do a good job - no, a great job!

I have a passion for computers and programming, but I know I don&#039;t always have the skills to do the job, so I&#039;m driven not only by a requirement to learn but the passion to learn, and I get just as much satisfaction for myself just out of learning how to do something as I do in actually putting that knowledge into practice.

Passion is not the be all and end all, but it cannot be discarded as unimportant. It *is* a factor in why some people are better at some things than others. Skill, ability and talent combine to make someone extremely adept at a particular task, but throw passion into the mix and you give that person drive, a turbo-boost in essence, to take that skill and turn it into Jedi Mastery.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Passion doesn&#8217;t make a a great programmer, nor a professional one. Passion is what drives us to strive to be great. You might have a natural talent, or be a prodigy like Mozart, but if you don&#8217;t have the passion for what you do then you will likely still be great at it, but it won&#8217;t mean much to you inside. And I think that&#8217;s where the line between passion and skill/talent get blurred. Many people believe that anyone with massive talent *must* love what they do, and thus be passionate about it, but that&#8217;s not always the case.</p>
<p>I love what I do, I&#8217;m passionate about computers and programming, and my love and interest in electronics directed me towards computers and I remember the first time I switched on my first computer, a Sinclair ZX-81, and typed in the lines of my first program, I knew this was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life as a career. I&#8217;m passionate about what I do, but I don&#8217;t always love it and sometimes wish I was doing something else, but that passion drives me continually to learn more, learn new skills, and always do the very best job I can, every time, even though I might not love the particular project I&#8217;m working on, I can&#8217;t do a second-rate job &#8211; the passion I have and the love for my work means that not striving to do my best is failing at my own values.</p>
<p>But, in the same way that the skill doesn&#8217;t necessarily equate to passion, the existence of the passion doesn&#8217;t automatically imply the skills are there to satisfy it. And that&#8217;s where the drive for learning and improving yourself come in, and where the passion really helps. If you desperately want to learn how to do something because you have the passion driving you then you will learn it, and you continue to learn more and more new things which in turn feed your passion and drive to better yourself and do a good job &#8211; no, a great job!</p>
<p>I have a passion for computers and programming, but I know I don&#8217;t always have the skills to do the job, so I&#8217;m driven not only by a requirement to learn but the passion to learn, and I get just as much satisfaction for myself just out of learning how to do something as I do in actually putting that knowledge into practice.</p>
<p>Passion is not the be all and end all, but it cannot be discarded as unimportant. It *is* a factor in why some people are better at some things than others. Skill, ability and talent combine to make someone extremely adept at a particular task, but throw passion into the mix and you give that person drive, a turbo-boost in essence, to take that skill and turn it into Jedi Mastery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: toyappmaker</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-475</link>
		<dc:creator>toyappmaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-475</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think one rules out the other, i consider myself passionate about being professional. Because  much like a gold medalist i strife to be everything i can be and take great pride in my work. I am a craftsman. To me passion does not equal constantly chasing the latest fads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think one rules out the other, i consider myself passionate about being professional. Because  much like a gold medalist i strife to be everything i can be and take great pride in my work. I am a craftsman. To me passion does not equal constantly chasing the latest fads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-474</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-474</guid>
		<description>&gt; So you’re left with a continual process of dispassionate self-improvement for the sake of self-improvement, consistently carried out throughout your career.

But that&#039;s not at odds with being passionate about programming--not at all.

I&#039;d also disagree that passion is necessarily fleeting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; So you’re left with a continual process of dispassionate self-improvement for the sake of self-improvement, consistently carried out throughout your career.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s not at odds with being passionate about programming&#8211;not at all.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d also disagree that passion is necessarily fleeting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Lindqvist</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-473</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Lindqvist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-473</guid>
		<description>Even though I take almost no interest in the definitions of professionalism or passion, I do like the way the discussion is taking place.

My personal opinion is that both passion and professionalism is required to be a really good programmer. But of course priorities change throughout life and sometimes other things tend to get more attention.

I also appreciate the point about education. My personal take on this have been to start working without going to university. But taking courses on the side. Having worked 10 years as a programmer makes it really easy to take these courses and helps me solidify my practical experience into lasting knowledge. It also helps me in regards of critically evaluating my performance and knowing my weak spots. In turn helping me develop those points and further evolve in my professional field. 

Working full time and at the same time educating myself within the same field would not have been possible without some degree of passion I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even though I take almost no interest in the definitions of professionalism or passion, I do like the way the discussion is taking place.</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that both passion and professionalism is required to be a really good programmer. But of course priorities change throughout life and sometimes other things tend to get more attention.</p>
<p>I also appreciate the point about education. My personal take on this have been to start working without going to university. But taking courses on the side. Having worked 10 years as a programmer makes it really easy to take these courses and helps me solidify my practical experience into lasting knowledge. It also helps me in regards of critically evaluating my performance and knowing my weak spots. In turn helping me develop those points and further evolve in my professional field. </p>
<p>Working full time and at the same time educating myself within the same field would not have been possible without some degree of passion I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carsten</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-472</link>
		<dc:creator>Carsten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-472</guid>
		<description>This post is exactly how I think about my professional life as a software developer. Of course, I like to work in this field. Of couse, I like to solve problems. And of course, I like to create something that is useful to others. Maybe I&#039;m too much of an engineer to be a creative, rockstar-like programmer that everyone is talking about, but for me it is the level of professional workmanship that is the major point of &quot;being good&quot; at something.

I agree with the 10k hours that you need to really be good at something. It&#039;s the same with playing the piano or any other instrument. If you work on it, you&#039;ll get good. Maybe you&#039;re not the next Mozart, but not everyone needs to be on the top. That&#039;s why I don&#039;t like the sports examples: you&#039;re always talking about the gold medal winners. ;-) We won&#039;t have cars, won&#039;t have great buildings and won&#039;t have a lot of others great things if there weren&#039;t all the people that care about what they do and that really do a good job without standing out of the crowd. I think that is a much overseen part of professional work.

For me this discussion about passion is on the same level as the discussion about rockstar programmers and the whole &quot;programming is creative work&quot; things. You need the bright heads and the spare moments of genius to build really great things, but after that, you need a lot of dedicated and stubborn people to work on it every day from 9 to 5. :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This post is exactly how I think about my professional life as a software developer. Of course, I like to work in this field. Of couse, I like to solve problems. And of course, I like to create something that is useful to others. Maybe I&#8217;m too much of an engineer to be a creative, rockstar-like programmer that everyone is talking about, but for me it is the level of professional workmanship that is the major point of &#8220;being good&#8221; at something.</p>
<p>I agree with the 10k hours that you need to really be good at something. It&#8217;s the same with playing the piano or any other instrument. If you work on it, you&#8217;ll get good. Maybe you&#8217;re not the next Mozart, but not everyone needs to be on the top. That&#8217;s why I don&#8217;t like the sports examples: you&#8217;re always talking about the gold medal winners. <img src='http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' />  We won&#8217;t have cars, won&#8217;t have great buildings and won&#8217;t have a lot of others great things if there weren&#8217;t all the people that care about what they do and that really do a good job without standing out of the crowd. I think that is a much overseen part of professional work.</p>
<p>For me this discussion about passion is on the same level as the discussion about rockstar programmers and the whole &#8220;programming is creative work&#8221; things. You need the bright heads and the spare moments of genius to build really great things, but after that, you need a lot of dedicated and stubborn people to work on it every day from 9 to 5. <img src='http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-469</guid>
		<description>I think Michael Langford nailed it.  Passion is absolutely not the antithesis.  You can be both passionate and professional (and I seek both), and both will be useful at different times.  They are not mutually exclusive.

Again, as others have said, passion may be overused in job requirements, although at least we&#039;re now saying that instead of &quot;rockstar&quot; and &quot;ninja&quot; and things like that.  But the idea that you wouldn&#039;t want people who are passionate about coding (or any job), and that those people are not going to get the job done, etc. is ludicrous.  

As someone who is married, has kids, is a serious cyclist, and is the primary developer  at a startup, I am absolutely passionate about my work, but I also consider myself very professional.  I consider it a key part of my job to watch the business, and make the hard choices and do the necessary work to drive the business forward and make it successful, even when some of that work may be drudgery.

I do think there are varying degrees of passion, and I think you can absolutely be professional and successful without being passionate.  But I also think there are certain environments where you also need to be passionate, or where that will make you even more successful.  Thus, I would suggest reconsidering the &quot;antithesis&quot; angle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Michael Langford nailed it.  Passion is absolutely not the antithesis.  You can be both passionate and professional (and I seek both), and both will be useful at different times.  They are not mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Again, as others have said, passion may be overused in job requirements, although at least we&#8217;re now saying that instead of &#8220;rockstar&#8221; and &#8220;ninja&#8221; and things like that.  But the idea that you wouldn&#8217;t want people who are passionate about coding (or any job), and that those people are not going to get the job done, etc. is ludicrous.  </p>
<p>As someone who is married, has kids, is a serious cyclist, and is the primary developer  at a startup, I am absolutely passionate about my work, but I also consider myself very professional.  I consider it a key part of my job to watch the business, and make the hard choices and do the necessary work to drive the business forward and make it successful, even when some of that work may be drudgery.</p>
<p>I do think there are varying degrees of passion, and I think you can absolutely be professional and successful without being passionate.  But I also think there are certain environments where you also need to be passionate, or where that will make you even more successful.  Thus, I would suggest reconsidering the &#8220;antithesis&#8221; angle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carson</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-467</link>
		<dc:creator>Carson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-467</guid>
		<description>Your post inspired me to think more on this concept of professionalism:

...
In any case, it seems at least some (most?) programming is more like engineering, especially as there are computer and software engineers. So perhaps we should import the intuition behind what it means to be a professional engineer into what it means for a programmer to possess professionalism.

Again, we look that up, but this time on the Professional Engineers Ontario website, which has a useful and short answer. What stands out to me is the condition that the work done has an element &quot;wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property or the public welfare&quot; is involved, and even more importantly:
...
Rest at:
http://blog.carsoncheng.ca/2010/02/professionalism-versus-passion.html

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your post inspired me to think more on this concept of professionalism:</p>
<p>&#8230;<br />
In any case, it seems at least some (most?) programming is more like engineering, especially as there are computer and software engineers. So perhaps we should import the intuition behind what it means to be a professional engineer into what it means for a programmer to possess professionalism.</p>
<p>Again, we look that up, but this time on the Professional Engineers Ontario website, which has a useful and short answer. What stands out to me is the condition that the work done has an element &#8220;wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property or the public welfare&#8221; is involved, and even more importantly:<br />
&#8230;<br />
Rest at:<br />
<a href="http://blog.carsoncheng.ca/2010/02/professionalism-versus-passion.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.carsoncheng.ca/2010/02/professionalism-versus-passion.html</a></p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Webb</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-466</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Webb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-466</guid>
		<description>Hey there.  I&#039;ve been in charge of a software project for 4 years and just recently, the project was handed over to another engineer.  This was *my* project and I was very proud (read passionate) about it.  When it was handed over to another engineer (whom I respect about doing a professional job), he decided to re-design pretty much everything using different technologies and I became a little overly passionate about the change in engineering decisions.

The engineer was being professional and making decisions based on best practices and what he knows best.  I on the other hand have spent 4 years with the platform and I think that I know what the platform requirements will work best for the project.

So, will the new engineer&#039;s &#039;best practice&#039; approach be better than my &#039;experienced&#039; approach?  We have yet to find out.

I&#039;m biased, because I&#039;m the passionate person in this analogy, but I strongly believe that since I&#039;m passionate about the project and I have a more intimate understanding about the issue, my design will win out over the engineer who is very good but doesn&#039;t have the same experience with the platform as I do.

What do you think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey there.  I&#8217;ve been in charge of a software project for 4 years and just recently, the project was handed over to another engineer.  This was *my* project and I was very proud (read passionate) about it.  When it was handed over to another engineer (whom I respect about doing a professional job), he decided to re-design pretty much everything using different technologies and I became a little overly passionate about the change in engineering decisions.</p>
<p>The engineer was being professional and making decisions based on best practices and what he knows best.  I on the other hand have spent 4 years with the platform and I think that I know what the platform requirements will work best for the project.</p>
<p>So, will the new engineer&#8217;s &#8216;best practice&#8217; approach be better than my &#8216;experienced&#8217; approach?  We have yet to find out.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m biased, because I&#8217;m the passionate person in this analogy, but I strongly believe that since I&#8217;m passionate about the project and I have a more intimate understanding about the issue, my design will win out over the engineer who is very good but doesn&#8217;t have the same experience with the platform as I do.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-463</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-463</guid>
		<description>Very insightful.  I tend to agree, and I like how made the point that computer people are typically individuals who like to solve problems, and it tends to be that they solve problems with code, or networks.  

I believe that for 98% of the jobs out there, I&#039;m going to want someone who has hobbies apart from the computer.  Not to say that they don&#039;t ever write code when they&#039;re &quot;off-the-clock&quot;, but rather that there are other things that interest them.  I really don&#039;t care what the other things are... bee keeping, theology, cooking, auto-mechanics, creative writing,  but something that utilizes other aspects of their intellect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very insightful.  I tend to agree, and I like how made the point that computer people are typically individuals who like to solve problems, and it tends to be that they solve problems with code, or networks.  </p>
<p>I believe that for 98% of the jobs out there, I&#8217;m going to want someone who has hobbies apart from the computer.  Not to say that they don&#8217;t ever write code when they&#8217;re &#8220;off-the-clock&#8221;, but rather that there are other things that interest them.  I really don&#8217;t care what the other things are&#8230; bee keeping, theology, cooking, auto-mechanics, creative writing,  but something that utilizes other aspects of their intellect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Saurabh Garg</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-462</link>
		<dc:creator>Saurabh Garg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-462</guid>
		<description>I think you actually make a good case for being passionate about something in order to succeed in it. Being passionate implies being addicted to something, to an extent that you love it. When you love something/someone, you want that love to grow.

If you&#039;re meeting people who lose this addiction upon seeing failure, then they were not passionate to begin with. They were fooling themselves, much like the 50% or so of the couples who seek divorce within a couple years of their marriage. They were NOT in love.

Why do we have firmware authors slogging it out when they could be working half as hard to build the next iPhone app? Pure passion. They know they could work less and make more money doing something more colorful. They are passionate about electronics and engineering, and see no other option in front of them. If it were all about being &#039;rationally dispassionate&#039;, they would wake up and follow the money, also because professionalism would easily follow them.

I agree that intelligent people have a habit of being polymaths. But, that expertise extends only to related fields, and seldom to a very few disjointed domains. Even then, it&#039;s theoretically and quite literally possible to be passionate about more than one person/thing.

I think your argument is a bit jaded, or maybe it&#039;s just how the English language works.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you actually make a good case for being passionate about something in order to succeed in it. Being passionate implies being addicted to something, to an extent that you love it. When you love something/someone, you want that love to grow.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re meeting people who lose this addiction upon seeing failure, then they were not passionate to begin with. They were fooling themselves, much like the 50% or so of the couples who seek divorce within a couple years of their marriage. They were NOT in love.</p>
<p>Why do we have firmware authors slogging it out when they could be working half as hard to build the next iPhone app? Pure passion. They know they could work less and make more money doing something more colorful. They are passionate about electronics and engineering, and see no other option in front of them. If it were all about being &#8216;rationally dispassionate&#8217;, they would wake up and follow the money, also because professionalism would easily follow them.</p>
<p>I agree that intelligent people have a habit of being polymaths. But, that expertise extends only to related fields, and seldom to a very few disjointed domains. Even then, it&#8217;s theoretically and quite literally possible to be passionate about more than one person/thing.</p>
<p>I think your argument is a bit jaded, or maybe it&#8217;s just how the English language works.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Langford</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-461</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Langford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-461</guid>
		<description>I believe Mark Dennehy is missing the correct role of passion. 

He speaks of passion like it&#039;s the opposite of professionalism. They&#039;re unrelated attributes. 

Someone can easily be passionate AND professional or just passionate or just professional (or even neither). 

Professionalism , the commitment to the learning of the tools of the field in which you work and the constant application of those tools in a responsible manner for the benefit of your customers, is a very useful behavior in many endeavors; In others endeavors, which are more on the edge, in sharp growth phase, in a very early startup phase, etc, the unbalanced, burning drive of passion is actually more important than the practice of professionalism. 

The throwing three sheets to the wind but getting it working because you want to see it in the world (but probably done in a less than perfect manner) is often more important to a business in a transitory state.

Is passion better than professionalism? No. Is it worse? No.  They&#039;re used in different places to great effect though. It is true you can&#039;d build a stable business out of passion alone? You bet your pants it is. The point of passion is to make something fantastic. It is oblique to the challenge of the professional businessman who may or may not be able to make money off this fantastic creation. I think some dispassionate, non enthusiastic, realistic people in an endeavor are great. But for many projects, ambitious passionate developers are what get it to great.



All that said. I agree it&#039;s completely stupid to put &quot;passionate&quot; in a job listing. But it is most assuredly is not the antithesis of good programming. It can be a part, just as professionalism can be. They&#039;re just some ways to have a good programmer. I&#039;ve seen both great tick tock leave at 5pm programmers and great burn the midnight oil then burnout programmers. You&#039;re getting overly structured with your metaphors and missing reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe Mark Dennehy is missing the correct role of passion. </p>
<p>He speaks of passion like it&#8217;s the opposite of professionalism. They&#8217;re unrelated attributes. </p>
<p>Someone can easily be passionate AND professional or just passionate or just professional (or even neither). </p>
<p>Professionalism , the commitment to the learning of the tools of the field in which you work and the constant application of those tools in a responsible manner for the benefit of your customers, is a very useful behavior in many endeavors; In others endeavors, which are more on the edge, in sharp growth phase, in a very early startup phase, etc, the unbalanced, burning drive of passion is actually more important than the practice of professionalism. </p>
<p>The throwing three sheets to the wind but getting it working because you want to see it in the world (but probably done in a less than perfect manner) is often more important to a business in a transitory state.</p>
<p>Is passion better than professionalism? No. Is it worse? No.  They&#8217;re used in different places to great effect though. It is true you can&#8217;d build a stable business out of passion alone? You bet your pants it is. The point of passion is to make something fantastic. It is oblique to the challenge of the professional businessman who may or may not be able to make money off this fantastic creation. I think some dispassionate, non enthusiastic, realistic people in an endeavor are great. But for many projects, ambitious passionate developers are what get it to great.</p>
<p>All that said. I agree it&#8217;s completely stupid to put &#8220;passionate&#8221; in a job listing. But it is most assuredly is not the antithesis of good programming. It can be a part, just as professionalism can be. They&#8217;re just some ways to have a good programmer. I&#8217;ve seen both great tick tock leave at 5pm programmers and great burn the midnight oil then burnout programmers. You&#8217;re getting overly structured with your metaphors and missing reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Dennehy</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Dennehy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 10:20:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-59</guid>
		<description>The target shooting analogy is useful again here - when we start training people for target shooting, we don&#039;t train them to hit the center of the target; we train them instead to not have &quot;fliers&quot;, to be consistent. So they start off and they shoot a 60 shot match and they have some 9&#039;s and 10&#039;s, lots of 7&#039;s and 8&#039;s and a fair few 6&#039;s, 5&#039;s, 4&#039;s and worse. So we just work on basics. They don&#039;t get any more 9&#039;s and 10&#039;s, but they get less 4&#039;s, 5&#039;s and 6&#039;s. In other words, we work on consistency, on tightening up the pattern of their shots from the outside in - by bringing up the bottom of the histogram, not the top of it.

Focus on improving the bottom of the histogram and you pass out anyone focussing on the top in very short order. They may have a few 10&#039;s more, but you don&#039;t have 3&#039;s and 4&#039;s. Same thing in programming. Forget passion - focus on the process.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The target shooting analogy is useful again here &#8211; when we start training people for target shooting, we don&#8217;t train them to hit the center of the target; we train them instead to not have &#8220;fliers&#8221;, to be consistent. So they start off and they shoot a 60 shot match and they have some 9&#8242;s and 10&#8242;s, lots of 7&#8242;s and 8&#8242;s and a fair few 6&#8242;s, 5&#8242;s, 4&#8242;s and worse. So we just work on basics. They don&#8217;t get any more 9&#8242;s and 10&#8242;s, but they get less 4&#8242;s, 5&#8242;s and 6&#8242;s. In other words, we work on consistency, on tightening up the pattern of their shots from the outside in &#8211; by bringing up the bottom of the histogram, not the top of it.</p>
<p>Focus on improving the bottom of the histogram and you pass out anyone focussing on the top in very short order. They may have a few 10&#8242;s more, but you don&#8217;t have 3&#8242;s and 4&#8242;s. Same thing in programming. Forget passion &#8211; focus on the process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cormac</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-58</link>
		<dc:creator>Cormac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 09:46:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-58</guid>
		<description>Passion will improve your best performance, self-criticism and practice will improve your worst. In the long term, the latter is probably more important from the point of view of your usefulness to an employer - unless you hit a golden fortnight in which you create a product that makes a zillion dollars. Which is possible, but not terribly likely</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Passion will improve your best performance, self-criticism and practice will improve your worst. In the long term, the latter is probably more important from the point of view of your usefulness to an employer &#8211; unless you hit a golden fortnight in which you create a product that makes a zillion dollars. Which is possible, but not terribly likely</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: /var/log/mind &#187; Blog Archive &#187; In defense of passionate programming</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>/var/log/mind &#187; Blog Archive &#187; In defense of passionate programming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:36:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-57</guid>
		<description>[...] Dennehy blogs about passion in the context of programming in The case against passion. Took me a while to figure out what he wanted to get at but I think he&#8217;s completely mixed up [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Dennehy blogs about passion in the context of programming in The case against passion. Took me a while to figure out what he wanted to get at but I think he&#8217;s completely mixed up [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Easter</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Easter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-56</guid>
		<description>IMO, this post can be viewed as either (a) the logical fallacy of false alternative or (b) a semantic splitting of hairs with muddy terms.

Regarding (a), of course there is a middle ground where passion and professionalism meet. To suggest that a professional athlete doesn&#039;t have passion is absurd.

Regarding (b), can&#039;t one&#039;s passion fuel the drive to be dispassionate about analysis? I just don&#039;t buy that dispassionate professionalism gets pro athletes out of bed in the morning.  However, this descends us into definitions and semantics.  I can&#039;t argue against the post per se because the only definition of passion is that it is &quot;fleeting and transient&quot;.  That is, the rhetorical deck is stacked from the start.  (To be fair, the pro-passion posts don&#039;t really define it well either).

I do like the opening paragraph, though, and agree that the term is over-used.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IMO, this post can be viewed as either (a) the logical fallacy of false alternative or (b) a semantic splitting of hairs with muddy terms.</p>
<p>Regarding (a), of course there is a middle ground where passion and professionalism meet. To suggest that a professional athlete doesn&#8217;t have passion is absurd.</p>
<p>Regarding (b), can&#8217;t one&#8217;s passion fuel the drive to be dispassionate about analysis? I just don&#8217;t buy that dispassionate professionalism gets pro athletes out of bed in the morning.  However, this descends us into definitions and semantics.  I can&#8217;t argue against the post per se because the only definition of passion is that it is &#8220;fleeting and transient&#8221;.  That is, the rhetorical deck is stacked from the start.  (To be fair, the pro-passion posts don&#8217;t really define it well either).</p>
<p>I do like the opening paragraph, though, and agree that the term is over-used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Dennehy</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Dennehy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-55</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s precisely why passion is the antithesis of good programming. Any and Every programmer out there has days when they wake up and all they want to do is program, because they have an idea in their head and want to go code it up. The problem is that the next day, maybe all you want to do is go off and play computer games or go for a picnic or veg out in front of the idiot box. The good programmers are professional enough to get through that and push their projects forward even when they&#039;re not in the mood to do so. And if you think that the really great programming success stories were only done on days when their creators felt in the mood, you&#039;re incorrect.

The point wasn&#039;t about those wonderful high days that we all get, when going to work is a joy and everything&#039;s great - it&#039;s about &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; the days, good and bad. The good programmers, the mythical 20%, work through all those days. They&#039;re not dependant on waking up in a good mood to get good work done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s precisely why passion is the antithesis of good programming. Any and Every programmer out there has days when they wake up and all they want to do is program, because they have an idea in their head and want to go code it up. The problem is that the next day, maybe all you want to do is go off and play computer games or go for a picnic or veg out in front of the idiot box. The good programmers are professional enough to get through that and push their projects forward even when they&#8217;re not in the mood to do so. And if you think that the really great programming success stories were only done on days when their creators felt in the mood, you&#8217;re incorrect.</p>
<p>The point wasn&#8217;t about those wonderful high days that we all get, when going to work is a joy and everything&#8217;s great &#8211; it&#8217;s about <i>all</i> the days, good and bad. The good programmers, the mythical 20%, work through all those days. They&#8217;re not dependant on waking up in a good mood to get good work done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:08:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-54</guid>
		<description>I would actually argue the opposite .. professionalism will get you through the times when you lack passion .. passion is what keeps you thriving in your career ..why stay in your field without passion ? Do something you&#039;re passionate about and your creative mind is free to produce greatness. I can be a &quot;professional&quot; for a short period of time .. but if I don&#039;t have a passion for what I&#039;m doing .. sorry, I have better things to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would actually argue the opposite .. professionalism will get you through the times when you lack passion .. passion is what keeps you thriving in your career ..why stay in your field without passion ? Do something you&#8217;re passionate about and your creative mind is free to produce greatness. I can be a &#8220;professional&#8221; for a short period of time .. but if I don&#8217;t have a passion for what I&#8217;m doing .. sorry, I have better things to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dow.ngra.de &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Case Against The Case Against Passion</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>dow.ngra.de &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Case Against The Case Against Passion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-53</guid>
		<description>[...] Passion is the antithesis of good programming. &#8212; I think there is a lot of misunderstanding around the notion. Good programmers need some passion, but great programmers need lots of it. For some reason everyone wants great programmers, argely because they&#8217;ve been promoted as having 10x the productivity of a usual programmer. The trick is that a great programmer will likely not be motivated to deal with the usual problems (exactly because of his passion) and likely will even underperform in such a role. My thesis is that passion is just as much important as the software you&#8217;re building is creative. Not everyone needs greatness and there&#8217;s surely not enough of it to go around. Give it up, people [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Passion is the antithesis of good programming. &#8212; I think there is a lot of misunderstanding around the notion. Good programmers need some passion, but great programmers need lots of it. For some reason everyone wants great programmers, argely because they&#8217;ve been promoted as having 10x the productivity of a usual programmer. The trick is that a great programmer will likely not be motivated to deal with the usual problems (exactly because of his passion) and likely will even underperform in such a role. My thesis is that passion is just as much important as the software you&#8217;re building is creative. Not everyone needs greatness and there&#8217;s surely not enough of it to go around. Give it up, people [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Dennehy</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Dennehy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:47:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Gah! That&#039;s what happens if you do too many things at once!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gah! That&#8217;s what happens if you do too many things at once!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shadowfiend</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Shadowfiend</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-51</guid>
		<description>Worth checking that link; the linked post is a response to yours ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Worth checking that link; the linked post is a response to yours <img src='http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Dennehy</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Dennehy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Yes, I know, it&#039;s mentioned three times in the post above...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I know, it&#8217;s mentioned three times in the post above&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ngu Soon Hui</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Ngu Soon Hui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Hi, I have written &lt;a href=&quot;http://itscommonsensestupid.blogspot.com/2008/04/passion-does-not-mean-total.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a post&lt;/a&gt; on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I have written <a href="http://itscommonsensestupid.blogspot.com/2008/04/passion-does-not-mean-total.html" rel="nofollow">a post</a> on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bill</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator>bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-48</guid>
		<description>Mark,
Well said. Thank you for this thoughtful post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,<br />
Well said. Thank you for this thoughtful post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Dennehy</title>
		<link>http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/2008/03/31/the-case-against-passion/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Dennehy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stochasticgeometry.wordpress.com/?p=42#comment-47</guid>
		<description>Post on DZone, then notice the very next submitted post is &lt;a href=&quot;http://advice.cio.com/esther_schindler/rockstar&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this one&lt;/a&gt;, agreeing with me. Nice to know I&#039;m not the only one :D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Post on DZone, then notice the very next submitted post is <a href="http://advice.cio.com/esther_schindler/rockstar" rel="nofollow">this one</a>, agreeing with me. Nice to know I&#8217;m not the only one <img src='http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

