Well, we hit situations where the "story" goes on for months, because it's too difficult to split, or because it turns out to be vastly more difficult than intended. Yes, the team and members may be newish to Agile, but ultimately the two week limit is 100% artificial. The driver will take 3 weeks say, you can't split into sub-parts, you can't "demo" a driver that isn't finished except by artificially adding more work (adding simulation bits, a framework to demo it in,etc).
Project planning is HARD, and Agile is almost always being done by teams that aren't deeply involved in the planning stage. That's why Agile works for those projects were continuous delivery is viable but often fails when there need to be concrete results on specific dates (the yearly release, the new multi-year product that crosses multiple departments, etc). When Agile does work in those cases, it's because the company is changing and adapting Agile to do something other than what the high priests of Agile demand.
Why two months? If a project takes two years and you're agile the whole time... Upper management that is anxious about cancelling a project will feel the same way whether it's agile or something else. Agile is also being done by the people at the bottom unusually, not by the executives certainly, rarely by middle management, and the team at the bottom can never say "dumb project, let's cancel it".
Of course some say that the entire company needs to be Agile, but that's like insisting upon a state religion.
Right. And all sprints do is tell the team not to think long term and try to turn everyone into an agile generalist so they can be shuffled more easily onto stories.
When I see things like "because much of what is done is faux-agile, disregarding agile's values and principles", it sounds like the church arguing against reformers and splitters. Agile started life sounding like a religion, and over time that has only intensified. Sure some people do it badly, but Agile is not a magic bullet that solves everyone's problems all the time as long as it's done perfectly.
The problem is the adherents insist that there are only two models - agile or waterfall, nothing else. And then they try to put the two in conflict with each other. But waterfall is mandatory in so many environments. If you must tell your customers what features will ship on a certain date in the future, then you have to have project planning in advance of building or implementing, and that's where waterfall works. Agile is good for web sites where you're just tweaking small things and doing "continuous delivery". But it becomes clumsy with complex systems, and where you need specialists and not generalists.
Sure, I have seen some advocate that you just put the design phase into agile, but you're still stuck with the silly scrum model where you have to have results every two weeks even if a design task takes two months or more.
If a company is failing because of waterfall, they are almost certain to be failing with Agile as well.
I was at a company that sold expensive enterprise software. We made more money from professional services than with our overpriced software. Someone to install it, train the customers, customize the heck out of it for the customers, write custom applications on it, etc. The big bucks come from stuff other than the product.
FCC deals quite a lot with how to share a limited resource, who gets to use it, who doesn't get to use it, and how it gets used.
The FCC is overseen by congress and is an independent agency, it is not a part of the executive branch. No new law is needed here, congress already created statues to grant it the authority to regulate interstate communication via wire or RF.
Hmm, Federal *Communications* Commission. It logically should have some authority over a major communications company. The FTC is clearly without doubt the wrong place, because the FTC has no power over anything. Whereas until recently it was widely agreed that the FCC as the appropriate place for this.
However the Trump administration has taken it upon itself to dismantle the government, reduce and eliminate all its power, and let corporations do whatever they want. They're not the GOP anymore or they wouldn't be pissing on Reagan's grave so much.
Well, it's obvious that if the police see long skidmarks coming from a human driven vehicle smashing into an autonomously driven vehicle, and the witnesses claim that the light was red for the human driver and green for the autonomous vehicle, then you would conclude that the autonomous vehicle was in the wrong?
The autonomous vehicle will have a human in the car, and can describe what happened during the accident as well as the other party can.
If a human driven car hits another human driven car, then the police generally can figure out who is at fault. So in an accident with an autonomous vehicle, why not also let the police figure it out? Why automatically insist that the one car is in the wrong by default?
Hmm, when I was in high school I took bio and advanced bio. But then the University of California did not accept those classes as a "science" (chemistry and physics only), so I had to squeeze another class in as a senior.
Good universities require a broad level of education to graduate - you may major in one subject but are still required to learn many diverse subjects. But too many places tend to be too tightly focused, bending to the students' desires to not "waste time" on stuff they're not interested in. Some of these universities just seem like overpriced trade schools. I think some of this came about because some engineering majors have so many prerequisites and courses that they're already a 5 year degree without counting in the breadth requirements.
So engineering students should most definitely learn writing. Writing students should learn math and science. Everyone should learn political science.
Divide it up into three spheres; math/science, arts, and social sciences. Then everyone should be dabbling into all three of those.
This is just more prosecutor overreach. Just because a computer is being used does not mean that all the existing laws against fraud no longer applies. The reason they want these additional laws is so that they can tack on more and more charges. That way if the suspect is charged with ten crimes and for 8 of them the jury says "not guilty" at least two charges stuck...
Oh ya, some people do think that, I've seen them. They see examples of other companies striking it big, even if rare, and think it will happen to them. The probably need to get to gambler's anonymous though. But they don't often think that even when the company strikes it big that most employees aren't necessarily becoming independently wealthy. You gotta compare how many stocks you have to the total outstanding, and what class of shares you have (first in line vs the grubby ones for people who use a soldering iron). The investors have the vast majority of the stock, and the highest execs have the vast majority of the options, and everyone else will basically just get a nice happy bonus if things go well (not enough to retire on, but enough maybe to finish off the mortgage).
But I have seen the people who don't do that math, even if they otherwise are a smart person. And a large fraction of those people I have noticed also love to gamble.
No one can even distuinguish pixels at 4K when they're sitting at a reasonable viewing distance (ie, on the sofa). There are so very few programming offerings for 4K TV already.
The only use I can see is to turn it into a large computer monitor, not for individual use because it's too big, but to fill up a wall so you can put lots of info up at once (ie, in a control center). As a computer user it'd be better to have ultrawide for lots of windows rather than in a TV format.
A snag is all the bandwidth to keep those pixels filled - will it require two displayports be active at once?
Lord of the Rings Online occasionally has some problems as well, such as a Chink In The Armor being filtered... Same company so it's probably the same filter. Occasionally I'd have one of my own words %*&@#-ed out and I'd be puzzled about what it was I said that triggered the filter; did I stick in a typo, is there some meaning I'm missing, or...
The real reason is that people rely on computers to do their work for them. A web site should not automatically reject a new account based on a name; at the very most it should put it into a special bin for approval by a human being. Why aprogate responsibility to a computer?
I considered Trump the lesser of two evils when Hillary was the other option.
But why is that? What is so evil about Hillary. I can understand fully about disagreeing with her politics, I certainly don't agree with her. But why this incredible hate??
There was an interview on the radio from a leading evangelical leader about why they supported a presidential candidate that was so offensive to basic Christian values. His answer was that yes, Trump was pretty immoral in so many ways, but that Hillary was even worse. Which astounded me, I don't see anything immoral about Hillary who is a regular and faithful church member as well. Do these morons believe the conspiracy theories that she has murdered people, or that she has a child sex ring underneath a pizza parlor?? What's the immoral bit here? (for Hillary, not Bill)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we hit situations where the "story" goes on for months, because it's too difficult to split, or because it turns out to be vastly more difficult than intended. Yes, the team and members may be newish to Agile, but ultimately the two week limit is 100% artificial. The driver will take 3 weeks say, you can't split into sub-parts, you can't "demo" a driver that isn't finished except by artificially adding more work (adding simulation bits, a framework to demo it in,etc).
Project planning is HARD, and Agile is almost always being done by teams that aren't deeply involved in the planning stage. That's why Agile works for those projects were continuous delivery is viable but often fails when there need to be concrete results on specific dates (the yearly release, the new multi-year product that crosses multiple departments, etc). When Agile does work in those cases, it's because the company is changing and adapting Agile to do something other than what the high priests of Agile demand.
Who cares where we're going, just start laying track in any direction, we can always put u-turns in later!
If you have a strong team dedicated to making a process work, any process will work.
Why two months? If a project takes two years and you're agile the whole time... Upper management that is anxious about cancelling a project will feel the same way whether it's agile or something else. Agile is also being done by the people at the bottom unusually, not by the executives certainly, rarely by middle management, and the team at the bottom can never say "dumb project, let's cancel it".
Of course some say that the entire company needs to be Agile, but that's like insisting upon a state religion.
Right. And all sprints do is tell the team not to think long term and try to turn everyone into an agile generalist so they can be shuffled more easily onto stories.
When I see things like "because much of what is done is faux-agile, disregarding agile's values and principles", it sounds like the church arguing against reformers and splitters. Agile started life sounding like a religion, and over time that has only intensified. Sure some people do it badly, but Agile is not a magic bullet that solves everyone's problems all the time as long as it's done perfectly.
The problem is the adherents insist that there are only two models - agile or waterfall, nothing else. And then they try to put the two in conflict with each other. But waterfall is mandatory in so many environments. If you must tell your customers what features will ship on a certain date in the future, then you have to have project planning in advance of building or implementing, and that's where waterfall works. Agile is good for web sites where you're just tweaking small things and doing "continuous delivery". But it becomes clumsy with complex systems, and where you need specialists and not generalists.
Sure, I have seen some advocate that you just put the design phase into agile, but you're still stuck with the silly scrum model where you have to have results every two weeks even if a design task takes two months or more.
If a company is failing because of waterfall, they are almost certain to be failing with Agile as well.
The best way to beat music piracy is to start making only crappy music. Oh wait, I think they're already working on that...
You can re-use the plastic bottles too. It's a bad message to the kids that they can just throw the bottles away.
I was at a company that sold expensive enterprise software. We made more money from professional services than with our overpriced software. Someone to install it, train the customers, customize the heck out of it for the customers, write custom applications on it, etc. The big bucks come from stuff other than the product.
It's HOW you control the borders that matters.
FCC deals quite a lot with how to share a limited resource, who gets to use it, who doesn't get to use it, and how it gets used.
The FCC is overseen by congress and is an independent agency, it is not a part of the executive branch. No new law is needed here, congress already created statues to grant it the authority to regulate interstate communication via wire or RF.
You'll never convince an anti-government cheerleader to admit that any company can do wrong, it is against the whole free-market religion.
Hmm, Federal *Communications* Commission. It logically should have some authority over a major communications company. The FTC is clearly without doubt the wrong place, because the FTC has no power over anything. Whereas until recently it was widely agreed that the FCC as the appropriate place for this.
However the Trump administration has taken it upon itself to dismantle the government, reduce and eliminate all its power, and let corporations do whatever they want. They're not the GOP anymore or they wouldn't be pissing on Reagan's grave so much.
Well, it's obvious that if the police see long skidmarks coming from a human driven vehicle smashing into an autonomously driven vehicle, and the witnesses claim that the light was red for the human driver and green for the autonomous vehicle, then you would conclude that the autonomous vehicle was in the wrong?
The autonomous vehicle will have a human in the car, and can describe what happened during the accident as well as the other party can.
If a human driven car hits another human driven car, then the police generally can figure out who is at fault. So in an accident with an autonomous vehicle, why not also let the police figure it out? Why automatically insist that the one car is in the wrong by default?
Hmm, when I was in high school I took bio and advanced bio. But then the University of California did not accept those classes as a "science" (chemistry and physics only), so I had to squeeze another class in as a senior.
Good universities require a broad level of education to graduate - you may major in one subject but are still required to learn many diverse subjects. But too many places tend to be too tightly focused, bending to the students' desires to not "waste time" on stuff they're not interested in. Some of these universities just seem like overpriced trade schools. I think some of this came about because some engineering majors have so many prerequisites and courses that they're already a 5 year degree without counting in the breadth requirements.
So engineering students should most definitely learn writing.
Writing students should learn math and science.
Everyone should learn political science.
Divide it up into three spheres; math/science, arts, and social sciences. Then everyone should be dabbling into all three of those.
This is just more prosecutor overreach. Just because a computer is being used does not mean that all the existing laws against fraud no longer applies. The reason they want these additional laws is so that they can tack on more and more charges. That way if the suspect is charged with ten crimes and for 8 of them the jury says "not guilty" at least two charges stuck...
Sorry, he meant African-American helicopters.
Shhh, we're American over here.
Oh ya, some people do think that, I've seen them. They see examples of other companies striking it big, even if rare, and think it will happen to them. The probably need to get to gambler's anonymous though. But they don't often think that even when the company strikes it big that most employees aren't necessarily becoming independently wealthy. You gotta compare how many stocks you have to the total outstanding, and what class of shares you have (first in line vs the grubby ones for people who use a soldering iron). The investors have the vast majority of the stock, and the highest execs have the vast majority of the options, and everyone else will basically just get a nice happy bonus if things go well (not enough to retire on, but enough maybe to finish off the mortgage).
But I have seen the people who don't do that math, even if they otherwise are a smart person. And a large fraction of those people I have noticed also love to gamble.
No one can even distuinguish pixels at 4K when they're sitting at a reasonable viewing distance (ie, on the sofa). There are so very few programming offerings for 4K TV already.
The only use I can see is to turn it into a large computer monitor, not for individual use because it's too big, but to fill up a wall so you can put lots of info up at once (ie, in a control center). As a computer user it'd be better to have ultrawide for lots of windows rather than in a TV format.
A snag is all the bandwidth to keep those pixels filled - will it require two displayports be active at once?
Lord of the Rings Online occasionally has some problems as well, such as a Chink In The Armor being filtered... Same company so it's probably the same filter. Occasionally I'd have one of my own words %*&@#-ed out and I'd be puzzled about what it was I said that triggered the filter; did I stick in a typo, is there some meaning I'm missing, or...
The real reason is that people rely on computers to do their work for them. A web site should not automatically reject a new account based on a name; at the very most it should put it into a special bin for approval by a human being. Why aprogate responsibility to a computer?
I considered Trump the lesser of two evils when Hillary was the other option.
But why is that? What is so evil about Hillary. I can understand fully about disagreeing with her politics, I certainly don't agree with her. But why this incredible hate??
There was an interview on the radio from a leading evangelical leader about why they supported a presidential candidate that was so offensive to basic Christian values. His answer was that yes, Trump was pretty immoral in so many ways, but that Hillary was even worse. Which astounded me, I don't see anything immoral about Hillary who is a regular and faithful church member as well. Do these morons believe the conspiracy theories that she has murdered people, or that she has a child sex ring underneath a pizza parlor?? What's the immoral bit here? (for Hillary, not Bill)