What you describe is an anarchy and not a democracy.
Democracy requires voting, and, coincidently following what the result of that vote is. In your described tree, voting may or may not occur, and even if it does, it can be ignored. Basically, you look after your neighbors and they may return the favor -- it is usually in their best interest to do so, if they like it, or somewhat like it.
No, Open Source is not a democracy. It is anarchy. Wonderful, unabashed, and fully appreciated anarchy. There is no better place to be.
for reference: anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
You still have allot more freedom with a paper document.
No you don't - what planet are you from?
1) Paper gets stained, misplaced, stacked, moved, torn, or worst, lost. 2) For every printed document, there is an equally divergent knowledge of what is current. 3) Updating paper takes forever, if you want to do it with the right copy. 4) You have to get rid of the garbage somehow.
Paper is a burden, and makes you a slave to it.
There are a few instances in a business environment that helps to have paper, though, like quick notes, and quick diagrams. I think it is prudent to have contracts on file too (the originals).
I know that when I've instituted paper free documentation in the last 2 workplace (and there was plenty of it) that productivity soared. Confidence in the material rose, and access to the material was omni-present. Examples: 1) many people produced materials and correct materials 2) offsite review was possible, and happened from computers to smartphones 3) working from home, or in a hotel was suddenly possible -- and productive 4) Did I mention access? 5) Searching could happen. This is the most underrated workplace improvement _when_you_have_everything_paperless_
Paper-less works...
OTOH People print to much f**k** stuff because it's "easier to read", or "I like paper". Big W. The possibilities are far better when you have the strength to make the policies to push people into paperless. I did have the support, and it works SO much better.
My advice, remove the "printers of convenience"... out-source the rest. Then, only things that need to be printed will be. The rest will adapt. Give laptops for everyone who need to transport material around with them.
Movies have been historically making more money every year. Sure there has been a few odd years that fair poorly, but lets face it, those were bad movie years too. People like going out for a movie... good or bad. 3D might bring in a few more, but it's not really what makes someone go. Maybe it was for Avatar, but seriously, I probably would have gone to a 2D version too, if I didn't have the choice.
I think it is more hype about losing money from the 'industry' and whine for nothing. It's just lies about people staying home with DVDs or whatever. Blah blah. Pirating, whatever. All the theaters are mostly full when I go. If they are losing money at that, then there is something else seriously wrong.
There is no such thing as a normal company. You assume that a normal company cares about being efficient -- WRONG -- lip service to it, maybe, but actually - no. I have never seen nor experienced any company that actually cares about being as efficient as possible.
Companies are there to make money. If something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't.
The government is no different in that sense; if something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't. The main difference is that complaints about 'changing my job' or 'I won't have a job' weigh heavy on the government managers minds where it weighs less on a company's managers minds -- smaller companies can change more rapidly than big ones. Smaller government agencies can change more rapidly than big ones.
There is little difference between big companies and big government. The major one difference is that the government is (supposedly) there for the people and the company is (definitely) there for the company.
Not bad, but I think it would be more like matter of time before a bullet hits you in the hand.
There is no instant death, and probably you will just be really annoyed. And maybe if it happens again, you might do something about it to stop losing your finger.
From the general feeling I get, most people will let it happen over an over again, and try some additional software (armour), but not removing the culprit(s).
And contrary to MS.BS, competent eyes. Likewise, I have done similar. The premise is that not enough (competent) eyes are looking at the code. This is a faulty premise. In many cases, one extra pair of eyes is more than Closed Software gets.
IMHO, all software will become FOSS over time. There is room for closed source to exist for novel ideas... for a while, until there is a FOSS solution.
It's a great way to make sure the code works the way you expect, and when it doesn't you can learn how it actually works. Often you will find that this will expose huge flaws in the original code too. After that, it's a source of documentation, sort of.
I just rebuilt an entire Open Directory backend for a school that had grown from 200 nodes with a cheap SOHO network to upwards of 900 nodes and a Cisco backend. Until the moment I finished, the current admin was adamant that OS X Server and Open Directory in general just couldn't handle the load they were putting on it (essentially one-two hundred authentication transactions at peak times).
You should write up a posting on "how to do it" with OD. I've been looking for just that, and having a hard time finding useful examples.
It can take more, but if it is a full system with design, implementation and delivery, a year is a good rule of thumb.
Projects that include external clients always go slower than internal clients, but not by much. Meetings are delayed, features are dreamed up/changed, and requirements drift ("I meant X not Y -- didn't I say X? [no]"). Sales people want to talk about change management and well defined specs, but those are much more rare than you might think. Of the many many dozens of projects I've worked on, I can safely say only 2 were well spec'd.
I agree with the "estimate and multiply by pi" for the sub components of a full project, but the unspecified, "we want to do something like X" is going to be a long process... never forget the acceptance testing and debugging near the end, and maintenance after it's delivered. Oh ya, holidays. That can get you too.
However, small, well understood projects are easier to estimate and plan. If you've done something before, and it took 2 weeks to implement, it will take 2 weeks to implement -- 1 week to remember WTF you did last time and 1 week to do it again... If you remember WTF you did last time, you probably didn't do enough the first time.
Even though PA has had it's share of compatibility problems, it is working much better now. Things (sound devices) that never worked before actually work now and switching between them is possible -- on the fly --, when they weren't working at all before. It's so great to be able to use high quality audio for music/games, and a USB headset for phone calls.
I think you are right, we need to teach how computers can be used in every field, not just some text editing and how to make a sound when a target appears on the screen in power point.
Teaching about computers has become as interesting as teaching about polynomials.
There is tons of fascinating tools that can be used in every field with out having to program... Then bringing in programming as a solution to each field would be fantastic. What I mean is something like this: First, In art class, teach how to model using a 3D modelling program. Then teach how to animate it using a programming language. One can do the same thing in every discipline. Of course that would require the teachers to admit they don't know something, which would go over like a lead balloon.
So, the effects of developer incompetence are also multiplied several thousand times often across hundreds or thousands of systems.
Agreed, but still, incompetent C++ code exists too. Language choice is not important when dealing with incompetent developers... You might even argue that getting bad C++ code is easier to do than bad PHP, or Java code, but we're splitting hairs there.
You think you get a real server for that? You get a tiny division of a server for that kind of money.
A month's cost over to an hour for sure... but I messed up. So, to correct that $240/mo -> $8/day. Still $8 is a lot less than paying developers one hour in NA.
The network effect. They migrate to Java instead.
I don't follow you here. Sure, it could make sense to move to Java too... but why, if one wants the fastest possible code?
Indicating speculative projects and disposable code.
Yup. We are talking website stuff... Aren't we?...
All this is about writing code in C++ for websites. It can be done, but it is expensive up front. Sure it 'can' save you money later in operating costs. But that's not where there cost really is. I do think it would be prudent to offload to efficient languages when something is no longer speculative, but that doesn't occur until something matures. Even then, it has to have a certain scale to matter. A single server running PHP managing the load won't change anything much if you rewrite it to use C++ on a single server and it manages the load.
Running a server is cheap. Paying a developer is not.
The man hours to create good C++ vs good PHP is vastly different (all else being equal).
I think it is a couple of things going on here: 1) finding a good C++ coder to write web code is hard 2) why doesn't these big server farms start looking at migrating code from PHP to C or C++ when the PHP+web design is solid? 3) and the simple premise that "as computer power grows, so does the language to interact with it".
It is clearly faster to write code using PHP than C++. In a couple of minutes, using PHP, I can have a working website. In a hour, I can do the same with Java, and with C++, it would take a 4 hours...
I'll break down the costs for you: PHP - $20 Java - $100 C++ - $400
running a server for a day - $1 running 10 servers for a day - $10
so - in the end PHP might be $30, Java $110, and C++ $401
disclaimer: I write/wrote commercial products in C/C++, java, PHP, C#, and others. Speed to delivery is nearly always primary importance.
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to buy a console... I just will not buy hardware I am not allowed to own.
ditto
No, no. The "free market system" is not democratic either. It is much closer to a dictatorship. "Vote with your dollar" is a naive and foolish saying.
What you describe is an anarchy and not a democracy.
Democracy requires voting, and, coincidently following what the result of that vote is. In your described tree, voting may or may not occur, and even if it does, it can be ignored. Basically, you look after your neighbors and they may return the favor -- it is usually in their best interest to do so, if they like it, or somewhat like it.
No, Open Source is not a democracy. It is anarchy. Wonderful, unabashed, and fully appreciated anarchy. There is no better place to be.
for reference:
anarchy: a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
apply this to your life and it will improve.
You still have allot more freedom with a paper document.
No you don't - what planet are you from?
1) Paper gets stained, misplaced, stacked, moved, torn, or worst, lost.
2) For every printed document, there is an equally divergent knowledge of what is current.
3) Updating paper takes forever, if you want to do it with the right copy.
4) You have to get rid of the garbage somehow.
Paper is a burden, and makes you a slave to it.
There are a few instances in a business environment that helps to have paper, though, like quick notes, and quick diagrams. I think it is prudent to have contracts on file too (the originals).
I know that when I've instituted paper free documentation in the last 2 workplace (and there was plenty of it) that productivity soared. Confidence in the material rose, and access to the material was omni-present. Examples:
1) many people produced materials and correct materials
2) offsite review was possible, and happened from computers to smartphones
3) working from home, or in a hotel was suddenly possible -- and productive
4) Did I mention access?
5) Searching could happen. This is the most underrated workplace improvement _when_you_have_everything_paperless_
Paper-less works...
OTOH People print to much f**k** stuff because it's "easier to read", or "I like paper". Big W. The possibilities are far better when you have the strength to make the policies to push people into paperless. I did have the support, and it works SO much better.
My advice, remove the "printers of convenience"... out-source the rest. Then, only things that need to be printed will be. The rest will adapt. Give laptops for everyone who need to transport material around with them.
Theaters have been dropping in popularity as DVD sales go up and home theater systems get better -- 3D is trying to pull viewers back to the theater.
I don't think that the theatres are really having any trouble pulling people in
http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/Yearly.cgi
Movies have been historically making more money every year. Sure there has been a few odd years that fair poorly, but lets face it, those were bad movie years too. People like going out for a movie... good or bad. 3D might bring in a few more, but it's not really what makes someone go. Maybe it was for Avatar, but seriously, I probably would have gone to a 2D version too, if I didn't have the choice.
I think it is more hype about losing money from the 'industry' and whine for nothing. It's just lies about people staying home with DVDs or whatever. Blah blah. Pirating, whatever. All the theaters are mostly full when I go. If they are losing money at that, then there is something else seriously wrong.
Movies make money. Lots of it.
Any idiot that paints all conservatives or all liberals as idiots should rightfully be considered an idiot.
Nonsense! You're an idiot -- just like everyone else!
There. I now set that straight.
There is no such thing as a normal company. You assume that a normal company cares about being efficient -- WRONG -- lip service to it, maybe, but actually - no. I have never seen nor experienced any company that actually cares about being as efficient as possible.
Companies are there to make money. If something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't.
The government is no different in that sense; if something is working, it continues in that way until it isn't. The main difference is that complaints about 'changing my job' or 'I won't have a job' weigh heavy on the government managers minds where it weighs less on a company's managers minds -- smaller companies can change more rapidly than big ones. Smaller government agencies can change more rapidly than big ones.
There is little difference between big companies and big government. The major one difference is that the government is (supposedly) there for the people and the company is (definitely) there for the company.
6/10
Not bad, but I think it would be more like matter of time before a bullet hits you in the hand.
There is no instant death, and probably you will just be really annoyed. And maybe if it happens again, you might do something about it to stop losing your finger.
From the general feeling I get, most people will let it happen over an over again, and try some additional software (armour), but not removing the culprit(s).
It's the thing between them thar ears.
In a true free market, you just pay the fine for killing poor people.
There's a fine? And where does that go?
Anything of significance will either stick around, or be archived by others who find it significant.
That is the entire point!
The UK government is not allowing 'archives' of digital media without permission... which is overly burdensome for archiving.
And contrary to MS.BS, competent eyes. Likewise, I have done similar. The premise is that not enough (competent) eyes are looking at the code. This is a faulty premise. In many cases, one extra pair of eyes is more than Closed Software gets.
IMHO, all software will become FOSS over time. There is room for closed source to exist for novel ideas... for a while, until there is a FOSS solution.
That's a great idea! Could solve the "deer jumped in front of me" issue in one thawump!
It's a great way to make sure the code works the way you expect, and when it doesn't you can learn how it actually works. Often you will find that this will expose huge flaws in the original code too.
After that, it's a source of documentation, sort of.
Enjoy!
I just rebuilt an entire Open Directory backend for a school that had grown from 200 nodes with a cheap SOHO network to upwards of 900 nodes and a Cisco backend. Until the moment I finished, the current admin was adamant that OS X Server and Open Directory in general just couldn't handle the load they were putting on it (essentially one-two hundred authentication transactions at peak times).
You should write up a posting on "how to do it" with OD.
I've been looking for just that, and having a hard time finding useful examples.
why does one need Outlook?
no one needs Outlook... it's just a crutch. A painful, harsh, crutch.
It can take more, but if it is a full system with design, implementation and delivery, a year is a good rule of thumb.
Projects that include external clients always go slower than internal clients, but not by much. Meetings are delayed, features are dreamed up/changed, and requirements drift ("I meant X not Y -- didn't I say X? [no]"). Sales people want to talk about change management and well defined specs, but those are much more rare than you might think. Of the many many dozens of projects I've worked on, I can safely say only 2 were well spec'd.
I agree with the "estimate and multiply by pi" for the sub components of a full project, but the unspecified, "we want to do something like X" is going to be a long process... never forget the acceptance testing and debugging near the end, and maintenance after it's delivered. Oh ya, holidays. That can get you too.
However, small, well understood projects are easier to estimate and plan. If you've done something before, and it took 2 weeks to implement, it will take 2 weeks to implement -- 1 week to remember WTF you did last time and 1 week to do it again... If you remember WTF you did last time, you probably didn't do enough the first time.
All we need are two brushes on the bottom, and a slot to put the car in
voilà, no batteries needed!
woot!
I would be willing to bet some witnesses or by-standards will have some stories... Sometimes those results are great memories!
Whatever you do, don't install v1.32NA. It's garbage! I wish I never did!
I've been waiting for an update for months now, with a reboot every couple of days.
When it works, it's fine, but it is not certainly not stable.
Even though PA has had it's share of compatibility problems, it is working much better now. Things (sound devices) that never worked before actually work now and switching between them is possible -- on the fly --, when they weren't working at all before. It's so great to be able to use high quality audio for music/games, and a USB headset for phone calls.
Things are looking up on the PA front.
with the logic of this judge
yes
I think you are right, we need to teach how computers can be used in every field, not just some text editing and how to make a sound when a target appears on the screen in power point.
Teaching about computers has become as interesting as teaching about polynomials.
There is tons of fascinating tools that can be used in every field with out having to program... Then bringing in programming as a solution to each field would be fantastic. What I mean is something like this: First, In art class, teach how to model using a 3D modelling program. Then teach how to animate it using a programming language. One can do the same thing in every discipline. Of course that would require the teachers to admit they don't know something, which would go over like a lead balloon.
So, the effects of developer incompetence are also multiplied several thousand times often across hundreds or thousands of systems.
Agreed, but still, incompetent C++ code exists too. Language choice is not important when dealing with incompetent developers... You might even argue that getting bad C++ code is easier to do than bad PHP, or Java code, but we're splitting hairs there.
You think you get a real server for that? You get a tiny division of a server for that kind of money.
A month's cost over to an hour for sure... but I messed up. So, to correct that $240/mo -> $8/day. Still $8 is a lot less than paying developers one hour in NA.
The network effect. They migrate to Java instead.
I don't follow you here. Sure, it could make sense to move to Java too... but why, if one wants the fastest possible code?
Indicating speculative projects and disposable code.
Yup. We are talking website stuff... Aren't we? ...
All this is about writing code in C++ for websites. It can be done, but it is expensive up front. Sure it 'can' save you money later in operating costs. But that's not where there cost really is. I do think it would be prudent to offload to efficient languages when something is no longer speculative, but that doesn't occur until something matures. Even then, it has to have a certain scale to matter. A single server running PHP managing the load won't change anything much if you rewrite it to use C++ on a single server and it manages the load.
Running a server is cheap.
Paying a developer is not.
The man hours to create good C++ vs good PHP is vastly different (all else being equal).
I think it is a couple of things going on here:
1) finding a good C++ coder to write web code is hard
2) why doesn't these big server farms start looking at migrating code from PHP to C or C++ when the PHP+web design is solid?
3) and the simple premise that "as computer power grows, so does the language to interact with it".
It is clearly faster to write code using PHP than C++. In a couple of minutes, using PHP, I can have a working website. In a hour, I can do the same with Java, and with C++, it would take a 4 hours...
I'll break down the costs for you:
PHP - $20
Java - $100
C++ - $400
running a server for a day - $1
running 10 servers for a day - $10
so - in the end PHP might be $30, Java $110, and C++ $401
disclaimer: I write/wrote commercial products in C/C++, java, PHP, C#, and others. Speed to delivery is nearly always primary importance.