The same thing happens EVERY year, to be totally honest. Car maker x complains about car maker y's dominance. Ford is already complaining about Chevy's dominance at Daytona, and yet the winner of this weekend's race was driving a Ford. The makes are very equal this year, and I do believe we have the common templates to thank.
A few years ago, NASCAR rewrote the rule book to make one of Jeff Gordon's chassis (a Chevy) illegal. This type of thing will continue to happen for the duration of the sport, because "good" racing is good for business...and aerodynamic equality creates good racing.
You know, at one point, I would have agreed with you. But then my younger brother started racing (NASCAR sanctioned oval tracks). He was never very good in school, nothing really appealed to him, but he was always very good with his hands...and the mechanics involved in racing interested him. It was very gratifying to see him go through the transformation from an unsure 16 year old to a confident points leader at the local track. And it was wonderful to have him discuss the impact various transmission modifications would have on the "rotational mass" of the unit...or to hear him explain the physics involved in calculating the effect that different springs would have on the cross-weights of his car...etc. There are quite a lot of physics and mathematics involved...even at oval tracks. It's certainly different from road courses, but I wouldn't rank it higher or lower.
And, as far as the road racing skills of NASCAR regulars are concerned...have you paid attention to how Boris Said, Scott Pruett, Ron Fellows have done at the Glen and Sears Point in NASCAR events? Those guys are all road racing experts, but they don't blow away the NASCAR regulars. In fact, no "road racer" has ever won a modern-era NASCAR event at a road course. (Pruett came close last year, but he faded back to 6th.)
It is a DIFFERENT set of skills that is required to keep a Winston Cup car on an oval track at 180mph...but I wouldn't say that it makes them any less talented.
I feel your pain - I really do. We deal with those types of customers every day and it's enough to drive me to drink...it usually does. But I think you'll find that you'll be saving time in the long run by adopting some of these principles in every project.
The Jr. members of my team don't understand how I can make major changes to some of my programs in hours when it takes them days to make simple changes. Well - it's all about the rewrite. I don't find myself rewriting my code as much as I used to...it was like the day I learned that by writing object oriented code, I didn't need to completely reinvent processes to make modifications...just add new methods or - in cases where requirements change - new methods+properties.
And - what I always tell my coworkers - if they needed it yesterday, it's already late. Take 2 hours and come up with a good plan...
From a page discussing MySQL best practices: (http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2002/07/11/MyS QLtips.html?page=2)
7. Do not mix display code and database code. It is very difficult to maintain an application in which database code mingles with display code. An example of such a monstrosity is a JSP page that contains JDBC code. This situation should never happen.
Instead, applications are much easier to maintain when you divide application logic according to the model-view-controller (MVC) design pattern. This best practice applies both to Web programming and GUI application programming. In short, MVC forces you to split your code between the model (a component housing your database code), a view (a component that describes the user interface), and a controller (an object that handles user actions).
For more info on using MVC with php, visit the sourceforge site http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpmvc/ as a start. It's interesting stuff - and I admit, I don't always follow the rules and throw SQL in there sometimes myself. As you say, the lack of stored procedures makes this very tempting.
A note of warning, one of PHP's weaknesses IMHO is the lack of mature frameworks like MVC... Does PHP need MVC for what it's most commonly used for? Probably not. Would it be great for those of us that want to use it to build web solutions to complex problems? Probably.
...and MVC is just one way to do it in PHP. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to attack the problem as well. And if you're interested in non-PHP solutions, check out Velocity, a java-based template engine: http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/index.html
You are precisely right...and this hits upon the reason why so many websites are unmaintainable.
Many web programmers don't know the difference between the presentation layer, business logic, etc...and they just throw it all together. You end up with a site that works great in its current version...but is a bear to add functionality to or redesign visually.
anyone have any idea what the "other" web servers are? I changed the URL to check for a report on the "com" domain, rather than "jp", and noticed that there is a marked increase in 2002 for "other", and that corresponds with a decrease for both Apache and Microsoft.
Well, if you're just looking to reproduce the specific sound, then wave form would be fine. But if you're looking to understand why and how the instruments produce the wave, this helps tremendously:
the XVI instrument offers a "new concept" in vibrometry, as it can measure the rate of phase change at various points of a vibrating object.
Ever notice how a guitar string sound decays and modulates a bit as the sound fades away? We can measure that...and reproduce it...but this lets us look underneath the hood a bit. Of course, depending upon where on the string the pick/finger hits it, and how hard it is struck, it's going change phase at a different rate. They can measure the results of that phase change (in the wave form) now, but an increased understanding of how the material itself vibrates, correlated with the waveform change over time, will bring new understanding to the physics of sound.
Re:Moderation here is garbage
on
Life on Pluto?
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
agreed - this is more flamebait than insightful...just because it's flaming people that don't have a large representation on/. doesn't mean it's not flamebait.
Was religion mentioned somewhere in the article? Seems to me that this is fairly off-topic, too.
If one wants to believe in God, in the sense of the monotheistic religions, then there is nothing man has or does that is not part of God's plan, and by extension therefore God's creation.
Aren't you saying there's no such thing as free will...if "there is nothing man...does that is not part of God's plan"?
I agree with you also about the bible as a means to explain a complex universe in ways understandable to the people of the time...and it speaks to why so many preachers have difficulty relating Biblical text to today's situations and people. Churches that make this relation difficult on its preachers (through the doctrine that their staff are permitted to teach) make it difficult for reasonable people to sit through sermons on Sunday mornings. Fortunately, not all denominations have this issue.
As far as metaphor goes, I think it's important to realize that, thanks to the human tendency for hyperbole, when these stories were actually written down, they became significantly different from the actual events they attempt to describe.
This is why theologians compare the different versions of the stories to identify what is likely to be fact and what is likely to be exaggeration or poetic freedom. They also analyze what text has been added by editors over time and what text is original. There are some sections of the bible that are significantly different thanks to editing done in the 15th century. Unfortunately, the strict literalists aren't even aware of this and do not take it into consideration.
A belief in a God != the removal of free will! There are some schools of thought that do make this argument, but there are just as many that believe otherwise...and those arguments are theologically sound. Please do not assume that the pope or the Catholic Church speaks for all christians...do not assume that Southern Baptists speak for all christians. And do not assume I speak for all christians. We disagree, and that's fine with me. I am content with my level of faith and how that lines up with a strict interpretation of the Bible...and I am also content with where my faith deviates from it.
I certainly don't believe that disproving faiths is the point of science. I see it as the quest to improve human knowledge and understanding of the world around us b/c, without science, that understanding is imperfect.
These are some of the words of John Wesley, one of the founders of what is now the United Methodist Church. His 300th birthday is approaching...and he was far ahead of his time, in my opinion. He reinforces my belief that there are some reasonable people shaping religion over the years.;)
"orthodoxy or right opinions is at best but a slender part of religion." He says elsewhere: "The distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not... opinions of any sort.... All these are quite wide of the point," and adds: "We think and let think... whether or not these secondary opinions are right or wrong.... A Methodist is a person who has the love of God in his heart." Yet again: "The truth is, neither this opinion nor that, but the love of God, humbles man, and that only."
I'm certainly not writing this here to try to convert anyone or attract them to the Methodist church. But, please, do not disregard these words. There is more out there than the doctrine that is perpetuated by the Catholic church (and other denominations). To not recognize that is as egregious an error as the religious zealots who refuse to consider the strong scientific proof behind the theory of evolution.
I consider myself to be a spiritual person, and a very reasonable, scientifically-minded person. I do not feel that Creationism and Evolution/Big Bang Theories are mutually-exclusive. I personally feel that much of the Bible (etc) should be read as metaphor, not literal. I feel that social responsibility, not the promise/fear of God, is what should motivate us to live our lives in a good manner. All the evidence I need of a divine organization is all around me: in the beauty of nature untouched by human hand, and in the patterns amidst the chaos of a busy city sidewalk. My God is a loving, inclusive God: accepting and welcoming all regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, background, gender, or sexuality. All those moved to service in a faith community should be welcome to participate in whatever manner they wish - male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. And finally, I make no requirements of others in the judgment of the validity of their faith. Same faith, different faith, or no faith, all are welcome to be my friend and in close relationship with me and my family. My only requirement is that we act with goodness as much as possible - towards ourselves, towards our families, towards our friends...and towards people we don't even know.
To me, this statement of faith is what Jesus (Buddha, Ghandi, etc) would have wanted - to treat each other with love, kindness, and respect. You tell me - does that faith make me stupid? somehow less reasonable than people who are certain there is no God? No, faith isn't the issue, it's what is often done in the name of organized religion that is troublesome.
I know - that diverted from the topic just a bit, but, as much as some "devout Christians'" reasoning when it comes to evolution is flawed, I find some people's understanding of faith just as flawed. And, as soon as I say "I have faith" on Slashdot, I'm sure some people make a number of assumptions about me...and those assumptions are probably contradictory to the above statement of faith. (And no, I don't mean you, the poster I'm replying to...just in general.)
I disagree with you a little bit on some semantics: science is a man-made concept, as is organized religion. The "evolution" of the Church over the years has as much been influenced by human wants and desires as it has been by scripture (see Martin Luther). I would argue that, as the Church stands now, it is more a creation of man than it is of God. Christians have gotten Jesus' message just all wrong....but that's a topic for another discussion;)
The way I look at it, science is just one tool that we have developed to explain the mysteries of creation. Personally, I find this whole evolutionist vs. creationist debate a bit silly; in my personal theology, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I read the Bible as mostly metaphor...and the great flood was probably a great flood...but it probably wasn't as severe as the Bible leads us to believe. I think it probably covered as much of the "world" as Noah knew existed, which probably wasn't very much at all. To me, the story of Noah doesn't go very far to proving one side or the other as being "The Truth".
In fact, and probably one of the most intersting catch-22's I can think of, very little in the Bible is successful at disproving science; and very little in science is successful at disproving the beliefs of the various faiths of the world. And I'm OK with that;)
invariably those causes will prevent any try you make to help things out.
I forgot to address this. Yes, I understand where you are coming from 100%. I have been there. It is extremely frustrating. And, if that is really the case, then again, by all means, get out. I just don't think that just because a company has problems with its business process, it means that the company is a lost cause. There are lots of reasons companies can have problems with its business processes...not all are unrepairable. And not all managers are unwilling to consider suggestions from those of us who are in the trenches. If, in your opinion, what is necessary to fix your problems runs counter to corporate culture, then you're screwed. But, if it is just not a part of your corporate culture, then there is hope.
In our company's case, we had the salesperson overselling issue too. We eventually came to the understanding that, for all "large" projects, the company's "Ace" Development Team would be involved from day 1...involved in all conversations with the client...and responsible for educating client and salesperson alike about the technical hurdles their project creates. Do we still have the overselling issue? Occasionally...but it's nowhere near the problem that it used to be. Probably because it only happens on the smaller projects (when it happens) and the scope makes it easier to deal with, usually.
I just don't get the feeling that's the situation here, though. It sounds to me like the complaint the original poster had was a common one, typical of many industries...not just IT. It's probably aggravated in the IT industry because of the technical lingo and lack of understanding exhibited by many of our clients re: what exactly goes into a software development project...but I don't think the company he/she describes is going down in flames...I just think it needs some fine-tuning.
And, as far as my thoughts go re: not jumping ship -- if everyone who can see failures in business processes jumps ship without making some attempt at fixing the problems, you end up with an industry with a poor repuation for company viability, an industry marred by wasted venture capital, an industry that makes people nervous when considering investment. Turnover rate and rate of improvement within a company are inversely related...the higher the rate of turnover, the lower the likelihood that there are enough employees with enough history with projects/business process to improve them. I am certainly NOT blaming all dot-bombs on employee exodus, but it does not help.
Bottom line, if you personally are unhappy, by all means, get out. There's nothing worse than toiling away at a job that you hate. BUT, just because you can see problems does not make you unhappy. It just makes you insightful and a useful tool to your company's management. If/how you decide to present yourself in that manner is up to you.
You know, I know you're an AC...and maybe you're trolling...but I'll bite. People these days jump ship too quickly. Change is frustrating, and difficult to implement...but for the few of us that can actually see the failures in business processes, it's a waste to just quit. It does nothing to help the company, or the industry.
If you like your job enough and the people you work with, my advice is to try to make things better.
Yes, those first few conversations the sales people have with your clients are part of the design stage. What it took in our company was a discussion with upper management of past failures, with specific examples, cost, etc of where this stuff bit you guys on the ass. Take time to make your case water-tight...and don't focus on INDIVIDUALS that hurt the business process. Focus on where the business process hurt the team.
You've already got 1/2 the answer there yourself. You've got a good idea of the things that typically go wrong. Now, what can you do to make them typically go right? Of course, there are ALWAYS going to be cases where the client is just a "bad client". You may be making profit on those clients in your books...but it may be "bad profit". Consider not doing work with them again if you (collectively) have made every effort to reign them in. And *always always always* have "post-mortem" team discussions at the close of *ALL* projects to discuss successes, failures, and areas of mediocrity. Again, don't focus on the individuals that failed, if at all possible...focus on the process that failed.
And finally, you think upper management only cares about $$$'s? You're right. So put it into terms they can understand. While they probably aren't as technically adept as you would want, they're also probably not TOTALLY clueless. If you can show, on their terms, where your business process needs help, you've crossed the first hurdle. Show them specifically how much money they lost in cases where salespeople oversold, or were unable to filter unreasonable changes mid-way through the development process. Just don't start such a conversation without also having some ideas on how to fix things.
...the problem is that many designers don't know enough about programming to muck around with the table tags to get the layout perfect.
I agree that it's a waste of a programmer to have to muck around with stylesheets...but the programmer should have not problem implementing them. And, many times, programmers understand more about which properties are supported in which browsers...lots of designers just throw together their stylesheets in Dreamweaver without giving much thought to what's going to work and what's not.
Yep - I didn't pay much attention to NASCAR until my younger brother started running a car in a regional division. (Since they are much more affordable, sponsoring those cars is a LOT cheaper.) But, once I started attending each race and spending time in the pits, I realized 2 things:
1) it's NOT just rednecks...it's also a hobby for doctors, lawyers, etc who happen to enjoy going fast
2) there's a lot of science that goes into setting up a car correctly...sure, at some of the lower levels, it's not really paid attention to all that much...but at the Winston Cup and Busch levels, it is.
To hear my not-so-technically inclined younger brother talk about diminishing his rotational mass in his transmission by taking out gears that he didn't use...and for him to grasp the concept of cross-weights and the various modifications that can be made to help a car better grip the track...that's when I really developed an appreciation for it. There's more to it than just rednecks going around in circles.
Please do not confuse Catholicism with Christianity - do not assume that Catholics speak for all Christians. Do not assume that Baptists speak for all Christians. I consider myself a faithful, spiritual person, but do not assume that I speak for all Christians, either. No single Christian speaks for all. I disagreed with some of what Larry had to say, but I very much enjoyed the manner that he presented his belief.
The United Methodist Church, for example, DOES change its doctrine regularly to keep up with changing times. Its members (I am not one) try to maintain their faith according to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - Primacy of Scripture, Tradition, as well as REASON and EXPERIENCE. Those last two are the foundation of belief that allows them to modify their doctrine to keep up with changing times. The following is a brief excerpt of some of John Wesley's writings. You tell me - are these the words of someone not in favor of changing opinions based on evidence?
"orthodoxy or right opinions is at best but a slender part of religion." He says elsewhere: "The distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not... opinions of any sort.... All these are quite wide of the point," and adds: "We think and let think... whether or not these secondary opinions are right or wrong.... A Methodist is a person who has the love of God in his heart." Yet again: "The truth is, neither this opinion nor that, but the love of God, humbles man, and that only."
I'm not writing this here to try to convert anyone or attract them to the Methodist church. But, please, do not disregard these words. There is more out there than the doctrine that is perpetuated by the Catholic church. To not recognize that is as egregious an error as the religious zealots who refuse to consider the strong scientific proof behind the theory of evolution.
I consider myself to be a spiritual person, and a very reasonable, scientifically-minded person. I do not feel that Creationism and Evolution/Big Bang Theories are mutually-exclusive. I personally feel that much of the Bible (etc) should be read as metaphor, not literal. I feel that social responsibility, not the promise/fear of God, is what should motivate us to live our lives in a good manner. All the evidence I need of a divine organization is all around me: in the beauty of nature untouched by human hand, and in the patterns amidst the chaos of a busy city sidewalk. My God is a loving, inclusive God: accepting and welcoming all regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, background, gender, or sexuality. All those moved to service in a faith community should be welcome to participate in whatever manner they wish - male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. And finally, I make no requirements of others in the judgment of the validity of their faith. Same faith, different faith, or no faith, all are welcome to be my friend and in close relationship with me and my family. My only requirement is that we act with goodness as much as possible - towards ourselves, towards our families, towards our friends...and towards people we don't even know.
To me, this statement of faith is what Jesus (Buddha, Ghandi, etc) would have wanted - to treat each other with love, kindness, and respect. You tell me - does that faith make me stupid? somehow less reasonable than you? Faith isn't the issue, it's what is done in the name of organized religion that is troublesome.
I don't know...seems to me like they'll be getting more data on households where the Head-of-Household is 25-34, education/income is at a certain level, and at least one person in the household is an Early Adopter. EVEN IF they trim down their sample so that it is nationally representative (which is what it sounds like they're doing), the data is still skewed by the Early Adopter nature of most TiVo owners.
Don't think that this will be any more accurate that the data they have now. They will still have to do a good amount of weighting/statistical manipulation to be able to extrapolate the viewing habits of the general population. So, if they are going to end up weighting/manipulating, it really doesn't become any more accurate in the areas of data that they already have.
In my opinion, the big gain here is being able to measure what people are recording. It tells less about viewership and more about personal preference...and will probably be of little use to advertisers (commercials are skipped)...it's really a new type of data, not more accurate old data.
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing happens EVERY year, to be totally honest. Car maker x complains about car maker y's dominance. Ford is already complaining about Chevy's dominance at Daytona, and yet the winner of this weekend's race was driving a Ford. The makes are very equal this year, and I do believe we have the common templates to thank.
A few years ago, NASCAR rewrote the rule book to make one of Jeff Gordon's chassis (a Chevy) illegal. This type of thing will continue to happen for the duration of the sport, because "good" racing is good for business...and aerodynamic equality creates good racing.
You know, at one point, I would have agreed with you. But then my younger brother started racing (NASCAR sanctioned oval tracks). He was never very good in school, nothing really appealed to him, but he was always very good with his hands...and the mechanics involved in racing interested him. It was very gratifying to see him go through the transformation from an unsure 16 year old to a confident points leader at the local track. And it was wonderful to have him discuss the impact various transmission modifications would have on the "rotational mass" of the unit...or to hear him explain the physics involved in calculating the effect that different springs would have on the cross-weights of his car...etc. There are quite a lot of physics and mathematics involved...even at oval tracks. It's certainly different from road courses, but I wouldn't rank it higher or lower.
And, as far as the road racing skills of NASCAR regulars are concerned...have you paid attention to how Boris Said, Scott Pruett, Ron Fellows have done at the Glen and Sears Point in NASCAR events? Those guys are all road racing experts, but they don't blow away the NASCAR regulars. In fact, no "road racer" has ever won a modern-era NASCAR event at a road course. (Pruett came close last year, but he faded back to 6th.)
It is a DIFFERENT set of skills that is required to keep a Winston Cup car on an oval track at 180mph...but I wouldn't say that it makes them any less talented.
I feel your pain - I really do. We deal with those types of customers every day and it's enough to drive me to drink...it usually does. But I think you'll find that you'll be saving time in the long run by adopting some of these principles in every project.
The Jr. members of my team don't understand how I can make major changes to some of my programs in hours when it takes them days to make simple changes. Well - it's all about the rewrite. I don't find myself rewriting my code as much as I used to...it was like the day I learned that by writing object oriented code, I didn't need to completely reinvent processes to make modifications...just add new methods or - in cases where requirements change - new methods+properties.
And - what I always tell my coworkers - if they needed it yesterday, it's already late. Take 2 hours and come up with a good plan...
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phpmvc/ as a start. It's interesting stuff - and I admit, I don't always follow the rules and throw SQL in there sometimes myself. As you say, the lack of stored procedures makes this very tempting.
A note of warning, one of PHP's weaknesses IMHO is the lack of mature frameworks like MVC... Does PHP need MVC for what it's most commonly used for? Probably not. Would it be great for those of us that want to use it to build web solutions to complex problems? Probably.
You are precisely right...and this hits upon the reason why so many websites are unmaintainable.
Many web programmers don't know the difference between the presentation layer, business logic, etc...and they just throw it all together. You end up with a site that works great in its current version...but is a bear to add functionality to or redesign visually.
If they ever come up with that, I could power a small city.
Besides...a flatted ninth in the key of C is a Db, not a C#...
(I used to want to hit people in my theory classes that said stuff like that...before they could utter the phrase "Enharmonic Equivalent")
I agree that the poster's usage is awkward, but comprise == to consist of, be composed of.
s e
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compri
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your objection...
...but I think I'd be tempted to start picking off motorcyclists just to see them go bouncing down the road on their airbag...boing boing boing....
anyone have any idea what the "other" web servers are? I changed the URL to check for a report on the "com" domain, rather than "jp", and noticed that there is a marked increase in 2002 for "other", and that corresponds with a decrease for both Apache and Microsoft.
Well, if you're just looking to reproduce the specific sound, then wave form would be fine. But if you're looking to understand why and how the instruments produce the wave, this helps tremendously:
the XVI instrument offers a "new concept" in vibrometry, as it can measure the rate of phase change at various points of a vibrating object.
Ever notice how a guitar string sound decays and modulates a bit as the sound fades away? We can measure that...and reproduce it...but this lets us look underneath the hood a bit. Of course, depending upon where on the string the pick/finger hits it, and how hard it is struck, it's going change phase at a different rate. They can measure the results of that phase change (in the wave form) now, but an increased understanding of how the material itself vibrates, correlated with the waveform change over time, will bring new understanding to the physics of sound.
agreed - this is more flamebait than insightful...just because it's flaming people that don't have a large representation on /. doesn't mean it's not flamebait.
Was religion mentioned somewhere in the article? Seems to me that this is fairly off-topic, too.
But I don't think I misunderstood this:
If one wants to believe in God, in the sense of the monotheistic religions, then there is nothing man has or does that is not part of God's plan, and by extension therefore God's creation.
Aren't you saying there's no such thing as free will...if "there is nothing man...does that is not part of God's plan"?
I agree with you also about the bible as a means to explain a complex universe in ways understandable to the people of the time...and it speaks to why so many preachers have difficulty relating Biblical text to today's situations and people. Churches that make this relation difficult on its preachers (through the doctrine that their staff are permitted to teach) make it difficult for reasonable people to sit through sermons on Sunday mornings. Fortunately, not all denominations have this issue.
As far as metaphor goes, I think it's important to realize that, thanks to the human tendency for hyperbole, when these stories were actually written down, they became significantly different from the actual events they attempt to describe.
This is why theologians compare the different versions of the stories to identify what is likely to be fact and what is likely to be exaggeration or poetic freedom. They also analyze what text has been added by editors over time and what text is original. There are some sections of the bible that are significantly different thanks to editing done in the 15th century. Unfortunately, the strict literalists aren't even aware of this and do not take it into consideration.
I certainly don't believe that disproving faiths is the point of science. I see it as the quest to improve human knowledge and understanding of the world around us b/c, without science, that understanding is imperfect.
These are some of the words of John Wesley, one of the founders of what is now the United Methodist Church. His 300th birthday is approaching...and he was far ahead of his time, in my opinion. He reinforces my belief that there are some reasonable people shaping religion over the years.
I'm certainly not writing this here to try to convert anyone or attract them to the Methodist church. But, please, do not disregard these words. There is more out there than the doctrine that is perpetuated by the Catholic church (and other denominations). To not recognize that is as egregious an error as the religious zealots who refuse to consider the strong scientific proof behind the theory of evolution.
I consider myself to be a spiritual person, and a very reasonable, scientifically-minded person. I do not feel that Creationism and Evolution/Big Bang Theories are mutually-exclusive. I personally feel that much of the Bible (etc) should be read as metaphor, not literal. I feel that social responsibility, not the promise/fear of God, is what should motivate us to live our lives in a good manner. All the evidence I need of a divine organization is all around me: in the beauty of nature untouched by human hand, and in the patterns amidst the chaos of a busy city sidewalk. My God is a loving, inclusive God: accepting and welcoming all regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, background, gender, or sexuality. All those moved to service in a faith community should be welcome to participate in whatever manner they wish - male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. And finally, I make no requirements of others in the judgment of the validity of their faith. Same faith, different faith, or no faith, all are welcome to be my friend and in close relationship with me and my family. My only requirement is that we act with goodness as much as possible - towards ourselves, towards our families, towards our friends...and towards people we don't even know.
To me, this statement of faith is what Jesus (Buddha, Ghandi, etc) would have wanted - to treat each other with love, kindness, and respect. You tell me - does that faith make me stupid? somehow less reasonable than people who are certain there is no God? No, faith isn't the issue, it's what is often done in the name of organized religion that is troublesome.
I know - that diverted from the topic just a bit, but, as much as some "devout Christians'" reasoning when it comes to evolution is flawed, I find some people's understanding of faith just as flawed. And, as soon as I say "I have faith" on Slashdot, I'm sure some people make a number of assumptions about me...and those assumptions are probably contradictory to the above statement of faith. (And no, I don't mean you, the poster I'm replying to...just in general.)
I disagree with you a little bit on some semantics: science is a man-made concept, as is organized religion. The "evolution" of the Church over the years has as much been influenced by human wants and desires as it has been by scripture (see Martin Luther). I would argue that, as the Church stands now, it is more a creation of man than it is of God. Christians have gotten Jesus' message just all wrong. ...but that's a topic for another discussion ;)
;)
The way I look at it, science is just one tool that we have developed to explain the mysteries of creation. Personally, I find this whole evolutionist vs. creationist debate a bit silly; in my personal theology, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I read the Bible as mostly metaphor...and the great flood was probably a great flood...but it probably wasn't as severe as the Bible leads us to believe. I think it probably covered as much of the "world" as Noah knew existed, which probably wasn't very much at all. To me, the story of Noah doesn't go very far to proving one side or the other as being "The Truth".
In fact, and probably one of the most intersting catch-22's I can think of, very little in the Bible is successful at disproving science; and very little in science is successful at disproving the beliefs of the various faiths of the world. And I'm OK with that
invariably those causes will prevent any try you make to help things out.
I forgot to address this. Yes, I understand where you are coming from 100%. I have been there. It is extremely frustrating. And, if that is really the case, then again, by all means, get out. I just don't think that just because a company has problems with its business process, it means that the company is a lost cause. There are lots of reasons companies can have problems with its business processes...not all are unrepairable. And not all managers are unwilling to consider suggestions from those of us who are in the trenches. If, in your opinion, what is necessary to fix your problems runs counter to corporate culture, then you're screwed. But, if it is just not a part of your corporate culture, then there is hope.
In our company's case, we had the salesperson overselling issue too. We eventually came to the understanding that, for all "large" projects, the company's "Ace" Development Team would be involved from day 1...involved in all conversations with the client...and responsible for educating client and salesperson alike about the technical hurdles their project creates. Do we still have the overselling issue? Occasionally...but it's nowhere near the problem that it used to be. Probably because it only happens on the smaller projects (when it happens) and the scope makes it easier to deal with, usually.
I just don't get the feeling that's the situation here, though. It sounds to me like the complaint the original poster had was a common one, typical of many industries...not just IT. It's probably aggravated in the IT industry because of the technical lingo and lack of understanding exhibited by many of our clients re: what exactly goes into a software development project...but I don't think the company he/she describes is going down in flames...I just think it needs some fine-tuning.
And, as far as my thoughts go re: not jumping ship -- if everyone who can see failures in business processes jumps ship without making some attempt at fixing the problems, you end up with an industry with a poor repuation for company viability, an industry marred by wasted venture capital, an industry that makes people nervous when considering investment. Turnover rate and rate of improvement within a company are inversely related...the higher the rate of turnover, the lower the likelihood that there are enough employees with enough history with projects/business process to improve them. I am certainly NOT blaming all dot-bombs on employee exodus, but it does not help.
Bottom line, if you personally are unhappy, by all means, get out. There's nothing worse than toiling away at a job that you hate. BUT, just because you can see problems does not make you unhappy. It just makes you insightful and a useful tool to your company's management. If/how you decide to present yourself in that manner is up to you.
You know, I know you're an AC...and maybe you're trolling...but I'll bite. People these days jump ship too quickly. Change is frustrating, and difficult to implement...but for the few of us that can actually see the failures in business processes, it's a waste to just quit. It does nothing to help the company, or the industry.
If you like your job enough and the people you work with, my advice is to try to make things better.
Yes, those first few conversations the sales people have with your clients are part of the design stage. What it took in our company was a discussion with upper management of past failures, with specific examples, cost, etc of where this stuff bit you guys on the ass. Take time to make your case water-tight...and don't focus on INDIVIDUALS that hurt the business process. Focus on where the business process hurt the team.
You've already got 1/2 the answer there yourself. You've got a good idea of the things that typically go wrong. Now, what can you do to make them typically go right? Of course, there are ALWAYS going to be cases where the client is just a "bad client". You may be making profit on those clients in your books...but it may be "bad profit". Consider not doing work with them again if you (collectively) have made every effort to reign them in. And *always always always* have "post-mortem" team discussions at the close of *ALL* projects to discuss successes, failures, and areas of mediocrity. Again, don't focus on the individuals that failed, if at all possible...focus on the process that failed.
And finally, you think upper management only cares about $$$'s? You're right. So put it into terms they can understand. While they probably aren't as technically adept as you would want, they're also probably not TOTALLY clueless. If you can show, on their terms, where your business process needs help, you've crossed the first hurdle. Show them specifically how much money they lost in cases where salespeople oversold, or were unable to filter unreasonable changes mid-way through the development process. Just don't start such a conversation without also having some ideas on how to fix things.
...the problem is that many designers don't know enough about programming to muck around with the table tags to get the layout perfect.
I agree that it's a waste of a programmer to have to muck around with stylesheets...but the programmer should have not problem implementing them. And, many times, programmers understand more about which properties are supported in which browsers...lots of designers just throw together their stylesheets in Dreamweaver without giving much thought to what's going to work and what's not.
Yep - I didn't pay much attention to NASCAR until my younger brother started running a car in a regional division. (Since they are much more affordable, sponsoring those cars is a LOT cheaper.) But, once I started attending each race and spending time in the pits, I realized 2 things:
1) it's NOT just rednecks...it's also a hobby for doctors, lawyers, etc who happen to enjoy going fast
2) there's a lot of science that goes into setting up a car correctly...sure, at some of the lower levels, it's not really paid attention to all that much...but at the Winston Cup and Busch levels, it is.
To hear my not-so-technically inclined younger brother talk about diminishing his rotational mass in his transmission by taking out gears that he didn't use...and for him to grasp the concept of cross-weights and the various modifications that can be made to help a car better grip the track...that's when I really developed an appreciation for it. There's more to it than just rednecks going around in circles.
The United Methodist Church, for example, DOES change its doctrine regularly to keep up with changing times. Its members (I am not one) try to maintain their faith according to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - Primacy of Scripture, Tradition, as well as REASON and EXPERIENCE. Those last two are the foundation of belief that allows them to modify their doctrine to keep up with changing times. The following is a brief excerpt of some of John Wesley's writings. You tell me - are these the words of someone not in favor of changing opinions based on evidence?I'm not writing this here to try to convert anyone or attract them to the Methodist church. But, please, do not disregard these words. There is more out there than the doctrine that is perpetuated by the Catholic church. To not recognize that is as egregious an error as the religious zealots who refuse to consider the strong scientific proof behind the theory of evolution.
I consider myself to be a spiritual person, and a very reasonable, scientifically-minded person. I do not feel that Creationism and Evolution/Big Bang Theories are mutually-exclusive. I personally feel that much of the Bible (etc) should be read as metaphor, not literal. I feel that social responsibility, not the promise/fear of God, is what should motivate us to live our lives in a good manner. All the evidence I need of a divine organization is all around me: in the beauty of nature untouched by human hand, and in the patterns amidst the chaos of a busy city sidewalk. My God is a loving, inclusive God: accepting and welcoming all regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, background, gender, or sexuality. All those moved to service in a faith community should be welcome to participate in whatever manner they wish - male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. And finally, I make no requirements of others in the judgment of the validity of their faith. Same faith, different faith, or no faith, all are welcome to be my friend and in close relationship with me and my family. My only requirement is that we act with goodness as much as possible - towards ourselves, towards our families, towards our friends...and towards people we don't even know.
To me, this statement of faith is what Jesus (Buddha, Ghandi, etc) would have wanted - to treat each other with love, kindness, and respect. You tell me - does that faith make me stupid? somehow less reasonable than you? Faith isn't the issue, it's what is done in the name of organized religion that is troublesome.
I don't know...seems to me like they'll be getting more data on households where the Head-of-Household is 25-34, education/income is at a certain level, and at least one person in the household is an Early Adopter. EVEN IF they trim down their sample so that it is nationally representative (which is what it sounds like they're doing), the data is still skewed by the Early Adopter nature of most TiVo owners.
...it's really a new type of data, not more accurate old data.
Don't think that this will be any more accurate that the data they have now. They will still have to do a good amount of weighting/statistical manipulation to be able to extrapolate the viewing habits of the general population. So, if they are going to end up weighting/manipulating, it really doesn't become any more accurate in the areas of data that they already have.
In my opinion, the big gain here is being able to measure what people are recording. It tells less about viewership and more about personal preference...and will probably be of little use to advertisers (commercials are skipped)
Hey...at least they're being honest about their cash flow!!!