When living in Santa Fe, New Mexico, I called the police about multiple break-ins at a place I was renting. I had nothing worth stealing, but the guy that lived in the connected apartment from mine did. The shortest time it took the cops to get there was 45 minutes. The longest time I stopped counting after 3 hours. My house was broken into 3+ times, and I didn't really care since the rent was cheap, and if any of the little punks tried it when I was around someone would have been calling a coroner instead of a cop.
If you seriously believe that the police are going to show up, to help you, quickly, when something bad is going down, you will be sadly surprised. I now live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the response time for "someone is going to die" types of police calls is typically in the double-digits of minutes (10-15 minutes.) The police are doing the absolute best that they can, but it seems like everywhere there are simply not enough cops to quickly respond to everything.
It's fine to talk about should and shouldn't, but what it really comes down to is that people need to accept responsibility for their own property. In this case, having the gas station attendants with ANY type of training at all could be a good first step. They might have been able to shutoff the malfunctioning pump.
These patents only exist for a limited amount of time, and then they expire. In the United States, I think this is at most twenty years.
The article doesn't mention expiration, or limited duration. Those are limits on the "ownership" this (evil) corporation has over the "heritage of mankind" after they spend $$$ sequencing genes and coming up with a novel use for that genetic material.
Doesn't this also depend on where you live, and what courts decided to uphold which patents? I remember reading about how a lot of Word Trade Organization work was done to make it so there was some sort of BASIC agreement on intellectual property rights.
At every place I've worked, including the company I now own, the developers haven't been the ones that decided on the development process. The fact that they haven't decided has either been because no one actively decided, and management provided a default choice, or because management actively made a decision regarding the development process (either due to business needs, or basically arbitrarily.)
So, I believe the question of whether or not developers should abandon Agile is based on the false pretense that developers typically are able to make a decision. I don't believe that they are able to decide which development methodology they subscribe to, in general.
Conferences that require peer-reviewed acceptance of the papers are what I consider tech conferences. As someone that has ONE published IEEE paper (NOT as the first author) and helped with another, internal-reviewed, government, paper as an intern, there is literally no comparison between something like Collision Conference, or the local promote-tech conferences I go to in New Mexico, and an actually peer reviewed conference. None. They have literally nothing in common, except that they both are nominally conferences.
The promote-tech conferences are filled with wild optimism, alcohol, and dumbassery. The peer reviewed conferences are filled with super hardcore academics, and very high end engineers, actually driving technology forward. It is easy to pay to go to these tech parties, including purchasing "speaker" spots, and much more difficult to get accepted to a high end research conference as a speaker. I believe Defcon is sort of in the middle. I applied for a full speaking spot there, was rejected, but then offered a lightning talk spot, and then was offered a lighting talk backup spot there before I could reply to the lighting spot talk. I declined. Defcon to me seems like a cross between the two, but closer to the party type of event than the academic type of event.
The reason people are issuing blockchain diplomas is so that they get a press release. The community college here issues them too, also in an attempt to get press releases, and draw attention to themselves as being blockchain-friendly.
If you have a degree from MIT, it doesn't really matter if it's "printed" on BlockChain, a piece of paper, or human flesh, as long as MIT actually issues it. I'd call up MIT to verify the degree, not process their entire blockchain. I'm happy when I get people with ANY degree in New Mexico, my state.
No, they'll be able to collect money from all of their citizens, to use for the common defense. This collected money will be collected through a compulsory transaction cost on all traded cryptocurrency, and used in a centralized fashion. Eventually, if those in control of this common fund want, they could use this for things other than physical defense, like education, social programs, or specific use cases. They might even levy charges against non-crypto-transactional things, like how big of a boat you have, or what other currencies you bring to their community.
I pay monthly gross receipts tax (12), quarterly withholdings (4) and a corporate (1) and individual (1) returns. The gross receipts can vary based on the state, so I can see how six times a year would be the minimum.
Well, by "crappy" I mean more like "cannot afford to go to school and has to work as a subsistence farmer, or will starve" crappy. Not American-crappy, but actually crappy.
I own a custom software development company. We accept money to turn vaporware into real software. Money is very useful for turning one thing into another, and was invented for exactly that purpose. Barter has many inefficiencies, and I prefer to use money rather than goodwill, community, equity, animals, vegetables, sexual favors, or IOUs, for creating software.
It also helps if the C-Levels either understand technology and the trends in technology, or trust the opinion of their high level I.T. Department, in order to better formulate what needs to be included in the vision for the companies future.
I agree with that statement, and I think it's half of the picture.
I also believe it's important for the technologists to try and understand business considerations, and trends in business, and for these things to be discussed with technologists, so that it's possible to understand why a manager might be asking someone to do something down and dirty. Or to trust the opinion of their higher level manager if not. When I ask my guys to do something terrible (such as iframing in WordPress content to designer mock-ups that are sort of working HTML, like I did today, unfortunately) I try and explain to them WHY we are not taking a good approach (because an unreasonable customer already started a marketing campaign, for tomorrow, and didn't tell me until four days ago so we cannot actually build out these pages even with a full team press.)
What I tend to see is that anyone with specialized knowledge generally believe that it's not possible to explain technical trade-offs to people without that knowledge, and people with specialized business knowledge generally believe that's it's not possible to explain the business trade-offs to people without that knowledge.
I always felt way less bad doing something down and dirty when my manager would: 1.) Explain why 2.) Explain how we'd spend the time to do it right afterward 3.)... and then we would actually spend the time to do it right afterward...
As someone that owns a software company, I am constantly attempting to push my customers towards proactive, forward thinking maintenance. It's not like CTOs, executives, and decision makes are dumb. Many times organizations are aware of systemic problems, and they would prefer to be in a break-fix model than a preventative maintenance model. Decision makers have to balance allocation of resources to different projects, and if something is presently working, why spend the resources to ensure that it continues to work? This is one approach. Additionally, I've seen IT professionals scoff at anyone with technical skills AND an ability to get their ideas into motion, and move money towards their ideas ("sales" / "suits.")
Another approach is taken by companies with successful products, big teams, very cheap costs of capital, that are sitting on tons of cash. Those companies are able to invest tremendously into forward thinking projects, and have redundancy at all levels of their organization, and can afford to fail proactively rather than reactively. My friend at Google said for every code change he makes, two other engineers have to sign off on his code, and it has to run through a battery of automated tests before it is (carefully, and reversibly) integrated into production. I think this is the other extreme from my experience in developing, and supporting, software in New Mexico.
I don't think it makes sense to sit on an armchair, and discuss what "companies" should, and shouldn't do - unless you are employed by such a company either as a contractor, an employee, or own a fraction of that company and you have voting rights. I'm often times able to convince people to invest more into proactive solutions, especially after a predicted disaster that has been warned about repeatedly. Even without such a motivating disaster, I'm usually able to convince people to take some proactive steps, even if they're not willing to spend as much as I'd like to convince them to, or move as fast as I'd like.
Try convincing someone, (or yourself!) to go to the gym and you'll see what I mean with the difficulties in convincing organizations to spend money maintenance.
Electronic Frontier Foundation laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Justice Department. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
I don't think this is a good idea. As someone that owns a software company, I tell my clients when they have terrible ideas that we shouldn't do them. If they insist, without a good explanation, there are other people that are happy to work on stupid crap with disastrous long term consequences.
I have zero desire to work on accelerated mobile pages, and I think the performance benefits associated with them are far outweighed by the crappy solution of bizarre existing standards, caching problems, and all the other issues that have nothing to significantly offer my clients.
I am not writing content for the New York Times, or helping them with their infrastructure, so my perspective may be somewhat limited.
This workshop's intention is to address this lack of formal training. Why not provide them with formal training (CS degrees?) if you want to address their lack of formal training?
I'd apply a number of filtering criteria (age, criminal conviction, level of education, earned income) to filter out the "best" people according to my elitist standards, and then randomly select them for a draft. If they refused, half of their property would be taken and they'd be imprisoned.
In my community, it is unfortunate that the elected officials tend to be their most successful while in office. It is the best position that many have ever had. I would prefer elected office to be the worst, lowest paying, crappiest job that they have ever had. I do not want to pick someone that desires to be in office. I'd rather draft someone that has many better things to do, and has already proved themselves as a capable, successful, leader.
They may be the first city in the world to have water prices be 100% market driven, and those that cannot afford the price may either die from thirst or move. There will be water to be had, but almost certainly not at the current prices.
I read this transcript, and like most well meaning generalizations, it fails to provide specific actors other than "we", "us", "the United States" and "the rest of the world."
So no, in general, without a specific actor, plant-based meat should not replace beef. That is because: 1.) There is no such thing as plant based meat. It does not exist, despite how much anyone wants it to exist. 2.) For whom should this replacement apply? I think this should be up to individuals to decide. If the costs to the planet are so high, and there is sufficient military might to enforce a global beef curtailing, then this costs should be reflected in the costs of beef. Then, if someone wants to pay actual (not externalities) then these costs should be reflected in the cost of beef. This is my opinion.
Good luck setting up your global government to enforce these price controls, or unspecified bans on beef. This is 100% impractical.
Yeah, it can be rough to learn how to use Git submodules...
Honestly though, the few times I've directly integrated with someone else's code, it hasn't exactly been library-ready. There was a lot of massaging that had to be done the last time I did this, so a straight up duplication of their stuff was actually not a bad idea (AFTER I submitted them a PR to try and help manage this.) Their application wasn't designed as a library though, so I'm not sure what the right thing to do when you library-ify someone's code actually should be.
Slashdot Mirror
I also think Canadians are less likely to commit crimes, which (if true) means that smaller/cheaper police forces can serve larger populations.
When living in Santa Fe, New Mexico, I called the police about multiple break-ins at a place I was renting. I had nothing worth stealing, but the guy that lived in the connected apartment from mine did. The shortest time it took the cops to get there was 45 minutes. The longest time I stopped counting after 3 hours. My house was broken into 3+ times, and I didn't really care since the rent was cheap, and if any of the little punks tried it when I was around someone would have been calling a coroner instead of a cop.
If you seriously believe that the police are going to show up, to help you, quickly, when something bad is going down, you will be sadly surprised. I now live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the response time for "someone is going to die" types of police calls is typically in the double-digits of minutes (10-15 minutes.) The police are doing the absolute best that they can, but it seems like everywhere there are simply not enough cops to quickly respond to everything.
When seconds matter, police are only minutes away.
It's fine to talk about should and shouldn't, but what it really comes down to is that people need to accept responsibility for their own property. In this case, having the gas station attendants with ANY type of training at all could be a good first step. They might have been able to shutoff the malfunctioning pump.
Would it be better for Amazon to try and increase their costs, by dealing with these employment standards?
These patents only exist for a limited amount of time, and then they expire. In the United States, I think this is at most twenty years.
The article doesn't mention expiration, or limited duration. Those are limits on the "ownership" this (evil) corporation has over the "heritage of mankind" after they spend $$$ sequencing genes and coming up with a novel use for that genetic material.
Doesn't this also depend on where you live, and what courts decided to uphold which patents? I remember reading about how a lot of Word Trade Organization work was done to make it so there was some sort of BASIC agreement on intellectual property rights.
At every place I've worked, including the company I now own, the developers haven't been the ones that decided on the development process. The fact that they haven't decided has either been because no one actively decided, and management provided a default choice, or because management actively made a decision regarding the development process (either due to business needs, or basically arbitrarily.)
So, I believe the question of whether or not developers should abandon Agile is based on the false pretense that developers typically are able to make a decision. I don't believe that they are able to decide which development methodology they subscribe to, in general.
Conferences that require peer-reviewed acceptance of the papers are what I consider tech conferences. As someone that has ONE published IEEE paper (NOT as the first author) and helped with another, internal-reviewed, government, paper as an intern, there is literally no comparison between something like Collision Conference, or the local promote-tech conferences I go to in New Mexico, and an actually peer reviewed conference. None. They have literally nothing in common, except that they both are nominally conferences.
The promote-tech conferences are filled with wild optimism, alcohol, and dumbassery. The peer reviewed conferences are filled with super hardcore academics, and very high end engineers, actually driving technology forward. It is easy to pay to go to these tech parties, including purchasing "speaker" spots, and much more difficult to get accepted to a high end research conference as a speaker. I believe Defcon is sort of in the middle. I applied for a full speaking spot there, was rejected, but then offered a lightning talk spot, and then was offered a lighting talk backup spot there before I could reply to the lighting spot talk. I declined. Defcon to me seems like a cross between the two, but closer to the party type of event than the academic type of event.
The reason people are issuing blockchain diplomas is so that they get a press release. The community college here issues them too, also in an attempt to get press releases, and draw attention to themselves as being blockchain-friendly.
If you have a degree from MIT, it doesn't really matter if it's "printed" on BlockChain, a piece of paper, or human flesh, as long as MIT actually issues it. I'd call up MIT to verify the degree, not process their entire blockchain. I'm happy when I get people with ANY degree in New Mexico, my state.
No.
No, they'll be able to collect money from all of their citizens, to use for the common defense. This collected money will be collected through a compulsory transaction cost on all traded cryptocurrency, and used in a centralized fashion. Eventually, if those in control of this common fund want, they could use this for things other than physical defense, like education, social programs, or specific use cases. They might even levy charges against non-crypto-transactional things, like how big of a boat you have, or what other currencies you bring to their community.
Oh wait, that's called "tax."
* * My accountant files taxes for me 18 times per year.
* getting taxes filled eighteen times a year.
I pay monthly gross receipts tax (12), quarterly withholdings (4) and a corporate (1) and individual (1) returns. The gross receipts can vary based on the state, so I can see how six times a year would be the minimum.
Well, by "crappy" I mean more like "cannot afford to go to school and has to work as a subsistence farmer, or will starve" crappy. Not American-crappy, but actually crappy.
It's going to be way easier to improve something from "crappy" to "not-so-crappy" as compared to improving something from "all right" to "good."
Oh no, I've used the goodwill of the community to convince them to work on my project, for free!
Thanks. This is what happens when I have the intern add content with limited oversight... Don't hire us for copywriting.
I own a custom software development company. We accept money to turn vaporware into real software. Money is very useful for turning one thing into another, and was invented for exactly that purpose. Barter has many inefficiencies, and I prefer to use money rather than goodwill, community, equity, animals, vegetables, sexual favors, or IOUs, for creating software.
It also helps if the C-Levels either understand technology and the trends in technology, or trust the opinion of their high level I.T. Department, in order to better formulate what needs to be included in the vision for the companies future.
I agree with that statement, and I think it's half of the picture.
I also believe it's important for the technologists to try and understand business considerations, and trends in business, and for these things to be discussed with technologists, so that it's possible to understand why a manager might be asking someone to do something down and dirty. Or to trust the opinion of their higher level manager if not. When I ask my guys to do something terrible (such as iframing in WordPress content to designer mock-ups that are sort of working HTML, like I did today, unfortunately) I try and explain to them WHY we are not taking a good approach (because an unreasonable customer already started a marketing campaign, for tomorrow, and didn't tell me until four days ago so we cannot actually build out these pages even with a full team press.)
What I tend to see is that anyone with specialized knowledge generally believe that it's not possible to explain technical trade-offs to people without that knowledge, and people with specialized business knowledge generally believe that's it's not possible to explain the business trade-offs to people without that knowledge.
I always felt way less bad doing something down and dirty when my manager would: ... and then we would actually spend the time to do it right afterward...
1.) Explain why
2.) Explain how we'd spend the time to do it right afterward
3.)
So that's what I try and do with my guys.
As someone that owns a software company, I am constantly attempting to push my customers towards proactive, forward thinking maintenance. It's not like CTOs, executives, and decision makes are dumb. Many times organizations are aware of systemic problems, and they would prefer to be in a break-fix model than a preventative maintenance model. Decision makers have to balance allocation of resources to different projects, and if something is presently working, why spend the resources to ensure that it continues to work? This is one approach. Additionally, I've seen IT professionals scoff at anyone with technical skills AND an ability to get their ideas into motion, and move money towards their ideas ("sales" / "suits.")
Another approach is taken by companies with successful products, big teams, very cheap costs of capital, that are sitting on tons of cash. Those companies are able to invest tremendously into forward thinking projects, and have redundancy at all levels of their organization, and can afford to fail proactively rather than reactively. My friend at Google said for every code change he makes, two other engineers have to sign off on his code, and it has to run through a battery of automated tests before it is (carefully, and reversibly) integrated into production. I think this is the other extreme from my experience in developing, and supporting, software in New Mexico.
I don't think it makes sense to sit on an armchair, and discuss what "companies" should, and shouldn't do - unless you are employed by such a company either as a contractor, an employee, or own a fraction of that company and you have voting rights. I'm often times able to convince people to invest more into proactive solutions, especially after a predicted disaster that has been warned about repeatedly. Even without such a motivating disaster, I'm usually able to convince people to take some proactive steps, even if they're not willing to spend as much as I'd like to convince them to, or move as fast as I'd like.
Try convincing someone, (or yourself!) to go to the gym and you'll see what I mean with the difficulties in convincing organizations to spend money maintenance.
Electronic Frontier Foundation laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Justice Department. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
I don't think this is a good idea. As someone that owns a software company, I tell my clients when they have terrible ideas that we shouldn't do them. If they insist, without a good explanation, there are other people that are happy to work on stupid crap with disastrous long term consequences.
I have zero desire to work on accelerated mobile pages, and I think the performance benefits associated with them are far outweighed by the crappy solution of bizarre existing standards, caching problems, and all the other issues that have nothing to significantly offer my clients.
I am not writing content for the New York Times, or helping them with their infrastructure, so my perspective may be somewhat limited.
This workshop's intention is to address this lack of formal training. Why not provide them with formal training (CS degrees?) if you want to address their lack of formal training?
I'd apply a number of filtering criteria (age, criminal conviction, level of education, earned income) to filter out the "best" people according to my elitist standards, and then randomly select them for a draft. If they refused, half of their property would be taken and they'd be imprisoned.
In my community, it is unfortunate that the elected officials tend to be their most successful while in office. It is the best position that many have ever had. I would prefer elected office to be the worst, lowest paying, crappiest job that they have ever had. I do not want to pick someone that desires to be in office. I'd rather draft someone that has many better things to do, and has already proved themselves as a capable, successful, leader.
They may be the first city in the world to have water prices be 100% market driven, and those that cannot afford the price may either die from thirst or move. There will be water to be had, but almost certainly not at the current prices.
I read this transcript, and like most well meaning generalizations, it fails to provide specific actors other than "we", "us", "the United States" and "the rest of the world."
So no, in general, without a specific actor, plant-based meat should not replace beef. That is because:
1.) There is no such thing as plant based meat. It does not exist, despite how much anyone wants it to exist.
2.) For whom should this replacement apply? I think this should be up to individuals to decide. If the costs to the planet are so high, and there is sufficient military might to enforce a global beef curtailing, then this costs should be reflected in the costs of beef. Then, if someone wants to pay actual (not externalities) then these costs should be reflected in the cost of beef. This is my opinion.
Good luck setting up your global government to enforce these price controls, or unspecified bans on beef. This is 100% impractical.
Yeah, it can be rough to learn how to use Git submodules...
Honestly though, the few times I've directly integrated with someone else's code, it hasn't exactly been library-ready. There was a lot of massaging that had to be done the last time I did this, so a straight up duplication of their stuff was actually not a bad idea (AFTER I submitted them a PR to try and help manage this.) Their application wasn't designed as a library though, so I'm not sure what the right thing to do when you library-ify someone's code actually should be.