Wrong. Any "crunch" time is a sign of a poorly managed project.
You know what components need to be written, because they are all in the requirements. (You have requirements, don't you?) You know what functionality is required, because you have a functional spec. (You have a functional spec, don't you?) You know how all your components are going to behave, and how they're laid out, because you have a design spec (You have a design spec, don't you?) You know roughly how long it will take because you are properly staffed, and provided estimates that match reality. (I know, I'm getting ridiculous, now...)
So why do you suddenly need "crunch" time at the end?
At the risk of offending the geek-gods, would anyone be able to answer the same question, but for C#/.NET? Everything I've found so far for rendering SVG written in C# is either "under development" or "abandoned".
Sometimes, you just don't have a choice as to whether you need to take a trip, and whether you need to have a deliverable (report, email, presentation) delivered. Or, sometimes, you find that on the first leg of your N leg outbound journey that you've been able to make room for Important Graph 14 in your presentation, or you call your assistant back in the office and they've been able to dig up Important Table 3. These are just a couple of scenarios where, between flights, connectivity is, in fact, important.
The idea that there's any idle time left at all in the business day is archaic. Lean staffing means everyone is carrying two or three times the normal workload, and, in turn, that means that any available moment needs to be used to advantage
Sounds more like "Work Addiction" than "Internet Addiction" to me. I hope you are being paid handsomely (and hourly) for your willingness to sacrifice every free second of your day, so some presentation you make to a room full of other burnt-out employees is just right.
Just an observation. The rest of your post was insightful and well-thought out.
Again, and again, if they're so dangerous, and unfit for society, why let them out of prison? You want life sentences for these (most?) crimes. Just admit it! You'll feel better about yourself.
I tend to pick "random string" type passwords, write them down and stick them to my computer case.
If someone has successfully gained physical access to my machine, it doesn't really matter how strong my passwords are anymore. I'd rather have the (easier) problem of phyiscal security to solve than the harder problems of adequately securing using weak passwords or trying to remember strong ones.
If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?
Perhaps you truly believe this. Why not say it? If you're right and it's "Once a criminal, always a criminal" then why do we have anything but life sentences in jail?
The *cause* of success is certain *character qualities*
That's one of many possible conclusions. A counter-opinion would be that a CAUSE of success is your parents' ability to bankroll your many failures until you hit upon success. Or your parents' ability to pay for your Harvard education where you meet the people who will make you successful despite your lack of work ethic. Or the many businesses your parents own from which you can choose a choice career.
The billionaires who brought themselves up by their own bootstraps and sweat are the very visible minority. They are the ones writing motivational books and fooling you rubes into thinking you have a chance. For every one of them, there are ten mere millionaires who inherited a little family business and never really had to lift a finger the rest of their lives.
Comparing having to do that at every interview is not at all the same as giving someone a "life sentence."
From the employer's point of view, merely having to ask that question is an easy way to disqualify someone when there are 200 other applicants for that job that you don't have to ask that question to.
That's why it's quite like a life sentence. If I had it my way, private citizens (and corporations) could not even find out one's past crimes if one completed fulfilling his debt to society.
The guy was arrested for burglary. It is necessary for him to respond, for the rest of his life, in every job/dating/whatever situation to "what happened?".
Actually, no. Assuming he did his time and repaid his debt to society, he shouldn't be punished for a crime for the rest of his life.
If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?
I've found that certain people have a gene in their system that allows their brain to effortlessly jump from "It's not a smart thing to do" to "It should be illegal!" Or from "It's a good thing to do" to "It should be mandatory!"
The scary thing is that these people probably gravitate towards politics more than the average.
They got you to voluntarily pay them around $1000 that you didn't owe them. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you write those checks. I'd call them smart businessmen!
From reading those posts, it is pretty clear that this guy seems like a total douchebag and in my view has no business maintaining any serious open source project, let alone something as important as glibc.
Particularly #3. Someone finds a bug, submits a patch, and in return gets mocked for their effort. How great.
Because no one would ever dream of lying and breaking a contract that is near impossible to enforce? Or do you have some magic ability that would let EMC know that someone divulged trade secrets and prove in court that a particular ex-employer did so?
If you presuppose someone is a liar from the start, you probably shouldn't be hiring them. A confidentiality agreement is more than enough if your goal is simply to protect IP and trade secrets. A non-compete is overkill at best, and abusive at worst.
or don't, and live in denial, and bad overly broad law will come forth instead. your choice. "bad new law" or "good new law" are your choices. "no new law" is not a choice that's going to happen if you understand anything of what motivates people to write law in the first place
I'm not satisfied with having to choose between a strong poison and a weak poison.
Fortunately, we have the Constitution to limit the mentality that always responds to a perceived injustice with "OMG WRITE A LAW!"
"No new law" is always a choice, and it what will eventually happen if both other choices are found to be in violation of the Constitution.
What if it's against two people? A-OK, or close enough?
2. over an extended period of time
Define "extended".
3. who is a minor (and the bully is an adult)
If a minor does it to a minor, can he/she be charged "as an adult"? If an adult does it to an adult, can the prosecution claim that the victim has a "child-like" mentality?
4. who is mentally unstable
Define.
There are so many loopholes in those criteria. I'd prefer that we just stick to the 1st Amendment, thank you very much.
There are entire cities with operating budgets less than what some of these jokers rake in, but thanks to tax loopholes some of them can actually claim refunds if they make the right combination of donations!
But when you point out how little the ultra-rich pay in taxes, you're a wealth-redistributing-Communist!
What exactly is wrong with reporting a crime that your neighbor did?
Technically, you are not reporting a crime. You are reporting suspicious activity which an officer MAY investigate and which MAY result in an arrest, which MAY end up with a conviction. Only then is it a crime.
The problem is, if you are innocent, the process of going from "suspect" to "acquitted" can destroy your life, bankrupt you financially, lose you your job and friends, and make it difficult to find another (job or friend) for the rest of your life.
Encouraging people to do this to each other, participating in what could ruin an innocent person's life, is irresponsible and, I would argue, morally wrong.
If you don't believe me, please post your home address, and I will provide the police an anonymous "helpful" tip that I saw you forcing a 12-year old boy into your basement. Let me know what your life is like in 12 months.
The big labels are pretty good about picking out stuff that sells, and artists tend to gravitate towards larger labels.
Is the industry good at picking stuff that becomes popular and sells? Or does it become popular because the industry tells us to like it and provides no alternative?
The entertainment industry doesn't just sell products. It commands its (mostly impressionable and young) customers to like what it is selling via hype, celebrity endorsements, manufactured peer approval, and other forms of marketing pressure.
People have to make money off of their work, you know.
Since when is profit a human right?
People don't have some natural right to make money off of their work. They are free to TRY to make money off their work, but the market ultimately decides how much their productivity is worth.
If there was some natural human right to make money off their work, I could get paid for performing hand-stands on the sidewalk next to my house--it's hard work, you know!
Slashdot Mirror
If you quit your job tomorrow, would you keep getting paid until 70 years after your death?
Wrong. Any "crunch" time is a sign of a poorly managed project.
You know what components need to be written, because they are all in the requirements. (You have requirements, don't you?)
You know what functionality is required, because you have a functional spec. (You have a functional spec, don't you?)
You know how all your components are going to behave, and how they're laid out, because you have a design spec (You have a design spec, don't you?)
You know roughly how long it will take because you are properly staffed, and provided estimates that match reality. (I know, I'm getting ridiculous, now...)
So why do you suddenly need "crunch" time at the end?
Properly managed project:
Week 1: 5 engineers, 40 hours, requirements
Week 2: 5 engineers, 40 hours, requirements
Week 3: 5 engineers, 40 hours, specifications
Week 4: 5 engineers, 40 hours, specifications
Week 5: 5 engineers, 40 hours, specifications, architecture
Week 6: 5 engineers, 40 hours, coding
Week 7: 5 engineers, 40 hours, integration, test
Week 8: 5 engineers, 40 hours, more test, acceptance, shipment
Improperly managed project:
Week 1: 5 engineers, 40 hours, coding
Week 2: 5 engineers, 40 hours, coding
Week 3: 5 engineers, 40 hours, coding
Week 4: 4 engineers, 50 hours, blow up, everything's wrong--start over. more coding
Week 5: 4 engineers, 60 hours, coding
Week 6: 3 engineers, 70 hours, coding, boss yelling "You guys are totally incompetent!!"
Week 7: 2 engineers, 100 hours, coding
Week 8: 2 engineers, 100 hours, coding, boss yelling "What the fuck?!? Just ship it!"
Most of the places I've seen always seem to choose door #2... Strange...
At the risk of offending the geek-gods, would anyone be able to answer the same question, but for C#/.NET? Everything I've found so far for rendering SVG written in C# is either "under development" or "abandoned".
Oh, God--I wish I hadn't already replied in this thread. Mod parent up 5x!! Awesome idea.
(until the TSA classifies power strips as "choking devices")
Sometimes, you just don't have a choice as to whether you need to take a trip, and whether you need to have a deliverable (report, email, presentation) delivered. Or, sometimes, you find that on the first leg of your N leg outbound journey that you've been able to make room for Important Graph 14 in your presentation, or you call your assistant back in the office and they've been able to dig up Important Table 3. These are just a couple of scenarios where, between flights, connectivity is, in fact, important.
The idea that there's any idle time left at all in the business day is archaic. Lean staffing means everyone is carrying two or three times the normal workload, and, in turn, that means that any available moment needs to be used to advantage
Sounds more like "Work Addiction" than "Internet Addiction" to me. I hope you are being paid handsomely (and hourly) for your willingness to sacrifice every free second of your day, so some presentation you make to a room full of other burnt-out employees is just right.
Just an observation. The rest of your post was insightful and well-thought out.
Again, and again, if they're so dangerous, and unfit for society, why let them out of prison? You want life sentences for these (most?) crimes. Just admit it! You'll feel better about yourself.
I tend to pick "random string" type passwords, write them down and stick them to my computer case.
If someone has successfully gained physical access to my machine, it doesn't really matter how strong my passwords are anymore. I'd rather have the (easier) problem of phyiscal security to solve than the harder problems of adequately securing using weak passwords or trying to remember strong ones.
You failed to bold the second part of my post:
If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?
Perhaps you truly believe this. Why not say it? If you're right and it's "Once a criminal, always a criminal" then why do we have anything but life sentences in jail?
An employer merely (and perfectly validly) wanting to know why he should employ somebody who used to steal is not "punishment".
It is punishment when "merely wanting to know" is code-word for "the interview was over when we pulled your criminal record".
The *cause* of success is certain *character qualities*
That's one of many possible conclusions. A counter-opinion would be that a CAUSE of success is your parents' ability to bankroll your many failures until you hit upon success. Or your parents' ability to pay for your Harvard education where you meet the people who will make you successful despite your lack of work ethic. Or the many businesses your parents own from which you can choose a choice career.
The billionaires who brought themselves up by their own bootstraps and sweat are the very visible minority. They are the ones writing motivational books and fooling you rubes into thinking you have a chance. For every one of them, there are ten mere millionaires who inherited a little family business and never really had to lift a finger the rest of their lives.
Comparing having to do that at every interview is not at all the same as giving someone a "life sentence."
From the employer's point of view, merely having to ask that question is an easy way to disqualify someone when there are 200 other applicants for that job that you don't have to ask that question to.
That's why it's quite like a life sentence. If I had it my way, private citizens (and corporations) could not even find out one's past crimes if one completed fulfilling his debt to society.
The guy was arrested for burglary. It is necessary for him to respond, for the rest of his life, in every job/dating/whatever situation to "what happened?".
Actually, no. Assuming he did his time and repaid his debt to society, he shouldn't be punished for a crime for the rest of his life.
If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?
I've found that certain people have a gene in their system that allows their brain to effortlessly jump from "It's not a smart thing to do" to "It should be illegal!" Or from "It's a good thing to do" to "It should be mandatory!"
The scary thing is that these people probably gravitate towards politics more than the average.
They got you to voluntarily pay them around $1000 that you didn't owe them. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you write those checks. I'd call them smart businessmen!
Eventually, this will just hurt the consumer. We will just get less quality art, movies, software, and music because there will be no profit in it.
Your conclusion makes no sense without supporting evidence.
Particularly:
--evidence that a lack of profit motive will reduce the quality of art, movies, software or music.
From reading those posts, it is pretty clear that this guy seems like a total douchebag and in my view has no business maintaining any serious open source project, let alone something as important as glibc.
Particularly #3. Someone finds a bug, submits a patch, and in return gets mocked for their effort. How great.
Because no one would ever dream of lying and breaking a contract that is near impossible to enforce? Or do you have some magic ability that would let EMC know that someone divulged trade secrets and prove in court that a particular ex-employer did so?
If you presuppose someone is a liar from the start, you probably shouldn't be hiring them. A confidentiality agreement is more than enough if your goal is simply to protect IP and trade secrets. A non-compete is overkill at best, and abusive at worst.
or don't, and live in denial, and bad overly broad law will come forth instead. your choice. "bad new law" or "good new law" are your choices. "no new law" is not a choice that's going to happen if you understand anything of what motivates people to write law in the first place
I'm not satisfied with having to choose between a strong poison and a weak poison.
Fortunately, we have the Constitution to limit the mentality that always responds to a perceived injustice with "OMG WRITE A LAW!"
"No new law" is always a choice, and it what will eventually happen if both other choices are found to be in violation of the Constitution.
1. stand against targetting one individual
What if it's against two people? A-OK, or close enough?
2. over an extended period of time
Define "extended".
3. who is a minor (and the bully is an adult)
If a minor does it to a minor, can he/she be charged "as an adult"?
If an adult does it to an adult, can the prosecution claim that the victim has a "child-like" mentality?
4. who is mentally unstable
Define.
There are so many loopholes in those criteria. I'd prefer that we just stick to the 1st Amendment, thank you very much.
There are entire cities with operating budgets less than what some of these jokers rake in, but thanks to tax loopholes some of them can actually claim refunds if they make the right combination of donations!
But when you point out how little the ultra-rich pay in taxes, you're a wealth-redistributing-Communist!
What exactly is wrong with reporting a crime that your neighbor did?
Technically, you are not reporting a crime. You are reporting suspicious activity which an officer MAY investigate and which MAY result in an arrest, which MAY end up with a conviction. Only then is it a crime.
The problem is, if you are innocent, the process of going from "suspect" to "acquitted" can destroy your life, bankrupt you financially, lose you your job and friends, and make it difficult to find another (job or friend) for the rest of your life.
Encouraging people to do this to each other, participating in what could ruin an innocent person's life, is irresponsible and, I would argue, morally wrong.
If you don't believe me, please post your home address, and I will provide the police an anonymous "helpful" tip that I saw you forcing a 12-year old boy into your basement. Let me know what your life is like in 12 months.
The big labels are pretty good about picking out stuff that sells, and artists tend to gravitate towards larger labels.
Is the industry good at picking stuff that becomes popular and sells? Or does it become popular because the industry tells us to like it and provides no alternative?
The entertainment industry doesn't just sell products. It commands its (mostly impressionable and young) customers to like what it is selling via hype, celebrity endorsements, manufactured peer approval, and other forms of marketing pressure.
If songwriters, musicians, etc. get no money for their work there will be no good music.
This opinion keeps getting repeated and repeated as if it's fact.
People have to make money off of their work, you know.
Since when is profit a human right?
People don't have some natural right to make money off of their work. They are free to TRY to make money off their work, but the market ultimately decides how much their productivity is worth.
If there was some natural human right to make money off their work, I could get paid for performing hand-stands on the sidewalk next to my house--it's hard work, you know!
Name me a single government program that actually works, and I'll be happy to eat my words.
The IRS?