You can't acquire counterfeit goods legally. The summary is inflammatory because it casually lumps in numb-nuts lawsuits from manufacturers who want their stuff off of e-bay with the courtcase, which happened because people were selling *fake* goods.
Because with cigarettes, it's not just *your* body. Second-hand smoke kills too. Non-smokers have a right not to be killed by cigarette-addicts, which trumps the "it's my life" rights of smokers.
Or in even simpler terms:
"We're doing this experiment because we want to find out what happens. We don't really know what will happen, but we assure you it will be perfectly safe."
The value of most common interruption is practically never higher than the task you're currently working on. You already prioritized and scheduled everything correctly, so what you are working on right now is important.
The additional time lost because you are out of the "zone" is also very significant - for programmers this time loss has been estimated to be 15 minutes beyond the time for the interruption itself. That means that if you get more than one e-mail, phone call or at-your-desk interruption per 15 minutes (Source: Peopleware), your productivity in your main task starts to approach zero.
Yet another reason for ignoring these "immediate" interrupts is because they are often "urgent", but rarely "important". You should read Stephen Covey for more on these, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that urgent things that aren't important are dangerous to productivity, and should be ignored as much as possible.
If it really is important and urgent and needs to interrupt you, then people will try again until you know it's important enough. Or you can arrange emergency channels (personal cell phone number) that should be used only when you really need to be interrupted. Just make sure that this channel is never abused for non-important, non-urgent communication.
You must have missed the part where I said "without having any authority at all". *That* is the core issue. Yeah, upper management calls you a "manager", but you aren't, because you have nada, nill, zilch, zip authority to make any decision. If you don't have any authority, you can't delegate any of it either.
In my experience you will never get any authority as a project manager in most places. You're no longer a techie so the techs don't trust you anymore. You're not a real manager so management doesn't take you seriously. You deal with a million things neither the techs or management want to do themselves, and you have no authority to change that.
Like everyone including the US is currently doing so much China, Myanmar, North Korea, Israel, Sudan, and probably a couple dozen more where there are more real issues than Iraq?
If a nation want to take the moral high ground it can't pick and choose. The US was *wrong* going into Iraq, ignoring the UN, and causing thousands of civilian deaths for a non-existent reason. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The US can keep claiming the moral high ground but nobody except perhaps a (near-)majority of US Citizens (who re-elected GW Bush) actually believes that anymore.
All nations should be honest enough to say "There was no good reason to go into Iraq, and even if there was we couldn't possibly justify an invasion considering all the other places where we've ignored good reasons to go in and supply the current brand of freedom and democracy."
IT project managers are soooo rare no adays that everyone is scrambling to hire them. A good IT project manager will manage each of the problems you noted above. Everyone, repeat after me:
Project Managers are NOT Managers .
They are glorified Excel & chart monkeys that are expected to report to their boss how well it is going without having any authority at all to actually get reliable data, much less influence what happens.
They spend endless hours arguing with a client that didn't want to spend 3 minutes actually explaining what they wanted about how the product doesn't deliver the functionality they never asked for.
It's a thankless, shitty job, so I stopped doing that and went into consulting instead. As a consultant and senior developer within the company I've won the trust of developers and can actually change things from the inside out. It's a lot more effective than "project managing" a product to success (hint: it's impossible).
It's not legacy code if it has never been in production. Sometimes it *is* better to just throw the crap out and start over, even for parts of a project.
That's assuming it will be a lock-and-key method, and that it will be the user who unlocks.
Those are currently pretty solid assumptions, but they may be invalidated by new developments and ideas.
Quite possibly, but not necessarily.
If the DRM manages the correct rights (all of them, and no more) in a fair and transparent way (as embodied in the principle of open-source software) then that could be a good thing.
One could for example imagine creative commons works DRM-ed in such a way that it's impossible to ignore/circumvent the license.
I still have a nagging feeling that it's impossible to do secure open-source DRM though.
How do you want to enforce any kind of DRM when you open your source code? The same way good encryption is enforced - by making breaking it independent of the code. Of course, it's an order of magnitude harder with DRM, perhaps even impossible, because the client needs to have the key to decrypt.
If someone finds a solution to that, it'll be a huge step forward for DRM.
That's a pretty solid point! On long-haul flights you want the pilots to be comfortable. That means adding quite a number facilities to the separate cockpit, reducing the economic feasibility quite a bit.
Secure fly-by-wire could help that situation, but it would hard to avoid DoS attacks even if hijackers can't actually take control of the plane.
The most common form of it that I see is one of the business dudes telling me (the Software Development Consultant) that a particular piece of technology "will take about a week to develop".
I've started replying with "so you will deliver to me next thursday then?".
But seriously, I think management and planning by wishful thinking are becoming a full-on religion around these parts.
According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bludge it's a slang word used in "chiefly Australian & New Zealand".
That's not "most of the English speaking world" AFAIK. And something that "googling it" turned up quite easily. I'm not a native English speaker, but I had 4 years of education in English-speaking schools. I had never heard of a bludge.
A large part of the value to be found in modeling the design in a precise language like Z, Alloy, or CSP is the thought about the design that's required in order to construct a model (the other part of the value being the model-checking or other automated analysis that helps you to find holes that aren't quite so "glaring").
If you're writing the design in a precise language, you are already coding it, just not in the "final" language. You could call this prototyping, and it's an argument *against* modelling.
"you know we said you should use word because it looks the same on every computer" If your company said that then whoever made that particular decision is a total moron. Even changing PRINTERS completely fubars the layout on MS Word.
If layout was the customer's requirement then MS Word is just about the last choice on the planet.
USB dongle - you're talking about Steinberg Cubase right? I use that, and I think the USB dongle is a hell of a lot easier than all those software packages that want to "authorize for my PC" with an internet connection and a unique key.
I just take my Cubase CD and my USB key to any project - I can legally use it ANYWHERE on ANY COMPUTER with my own personal key. So I have to bring an additional USB hub just in case, it's a lot easier than trying to get something authorized on a PC with no internet connection.
Sure, cracking is even easier, but I prefer to own my software legally *and* use it legally.
Slashdot Mirror
And then go on to prove black is white and vice versa. But be careful on zebra crossings!
We DEMAND rigid areas of doubt and uncertainty!
A mail-in vote.... why, would that be a "postal vote"? ;-)
You can't acquire counterfeit goods legally. The summary is inflammatory because it casually lumps in numb-nuts lawsuits from manufacturers who want their stuff off of e-bay with the courtcase, which happened because people were selling *fake* goods.
My password is all 7's. But I'm not telling you in which order!
Because with cigarettes, it's not just *your* body. Second-hand smoke kills too. Non-smokers have a right not to be killed by cigarette-addicts, which trumps the "it's my life" rights of smokers.
Or in even simpler terms: "We're doing this experiment because we want to find out what happens. We don't really know what will happen, but we assure you it will be perfectly safe."
The value of most common interruption is practically never higher than the task you're currently working on. You already prioritized and scheduled everything correctly, so what you are working on right now is important.
The additional time lost because you are out of the "zone" is also very significant - for programmers this time loss has been estimated to be 15 minutes beyond the time for the interruption itself. That means that if you get more than one e-mail, phone call or at-your-desk interruption per 15 minutes (Source: Peopleware), your productivity in your main task starts to approach zero.
Yet another reason for ignoring these "immediate" interrupts is because they are often "urgent", but rarely "important". You should read Stephen Covey for more on these, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that urgent things that aren't important are dangerous to productivity, and should be ignored as much as possible.
If it really is important and urgent and needs to interrupt you, then people will try again until you know it's important enough. Or you can arrange emergency channels (personal cell phone number) that should be used only when you really need to be interrupted. Just make sure that this channel is never abused for non-important, non-urgent communication.
But is anyone keeping the source safe?
You must have missed the part where I said "without having any authority at all". *That* is the core issue. Yeah, upper management calls you a "manager", but you aren't, because you have nada, nill, zilch, zip authority to make any decision. If you don't have any authority, you can't delegate any of it either.
In my experience you will never get any authority as a project manager in most places. You're no longer a techie so the techs don't trust you anymore. You're not a real manager so management doesn't take you seriously. You deal with a million things neither the techs or management want to do themselves, and you have no authority to change that.
Like everyone including the US is currently doing so much China, Myanmar, North Korea, Israel, Sudan, and probably a couple dozen more where there are more real issues than Iraq?
If a nation want to take the moral high ground it can't pick and choose. The US was *wrong* going into Iraq, ignoring the UN, and causing thousands of civilian deaths for a non-existent reason. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The US can keep claiming the moral high ground but nobody except perhaps a (near-)majority of US Citizens (who re-elected GW Bush) actually believes that anymore.
All nations should be honest enough to say "There was no good reason to go into Iraq, and even if there was we couldn't possibly justify an invasion considering all the other places where we've ignored good reasons to go in and supply the current brand of freedom and democracy."
It's not legacy code if it has never been in production. Sometimes it *is* better to just throw the crap out and start over, even for parts of a project.
That's assuming it will be a lock-and-key method, and that it will be the user who unlocks. Those are currently pretty solid assumptions, but they may be invalidated by new developments and ideas.
Quite possibly, but not necessarily. If the DRM manages the correct rights (all of them, and no more) in a fair and transparent way (as embodied in the principle of open-source software) then that could be a good thing. One could for example imagine creative commons works DRM-ed in such a way that it's impossible to ignore/circumvent the license. I still have a nagging feeling that it's impossible to do secure open-source DRM though.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.
That's a pretty solid point! On long-haul flights you want the pilots to be comfortable. That means adding quite a number facilities to the separate cockpit, reducing the economic feasibility quite a bit. Secure fly-by-wire could help that situation, but it would hard to avoid DoS attacks even if hijackers can't actually take control of the plane.
The most common form of it that I see is one of the business dudes telling me (the Software Development Consultant) that a particular piece of technology "will take about a week to develop". I've started replying with "so you will deliver to me next thursday then?". But seriously, I think management and planning by wishful thinking are becoming a full-on religion around these parts.
I'm sure you meant to say "Two seals with one truck"!
According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bludge it's a slang word used in "chiefly Australian & New Zealand". That's not "most of the English speaking world" AFAIK. And something that "googling it" turned up quite easily. I'm not a native English speaker, but I had 4 years of education in English-speaking schools. I had never heard of a bludge.
A large part of the value to be found in modeling the design in a precise language like Z, Alloy, or CSP is the thought about the design that's required in order to construct a model (the other part of the value being the model-checking or other automated analysis that helps you to find holes that aren't quite so "glaring").
If you're writing the design in a precise language, you are already coding it, just not in the "final" language. You could call this prototyping, and it's an argument *against* modelling.USB dongle - you're talking about Steinberg Cubase right? I use that, and I think the USB dongle is a hell of a lot easier than all those software packages that want to "authorize for my PC" with an internet connection and a unique key.
I just take my Cubase CD and my USB key to any project - I can legally use it ANYWHERE on ANY COMPUTER with my own personal key. So I have to bring an additional USB hub just in case, it's a lot easier than trying to get something authorized on a PC with no internet connection.
Sure, cracking is even easier, but I prefer to own my software legally *and* use it legally.
Super-heavy, let me guess, it's a Web 2.0 Web Page?