I've often wondered if pair programming, coupled with an appropriate voting system, would allow compensation to be distributed more fairly. The developers would all experience their relative levels of expertise and could rate themselves accordingly. Naturally, the voting system would have to be carefully chosen.
The first-past-the-post (or plurality) voting system used in most public elections in the United States is arguably the worst possible choice of voting systems because it favors two parties, is relatively easy to manipulate, is relatively easy to gerrymander, wastes votes, and has resulted in a dysfunctional congress. It should be replaced in all elections with a superior system (e.g., Approval voting, a Condorcet method, Majority Judgment, or Range voting).
As it stands now, members of congress apparently spend 40 to 60% of their time *on the job* seeking campaign donations. This raises reasonable doubt as to their true constituency. Public funding of all elections would eliminate this source of potential corruption at a cost that is much less than the benefit to society.
I read the article criticizing the NYT article and noticed that none of the counter-arguments addressed the NYT's main point: that most of the power goes to idle systems.
> As another scientist, you are using the word "belief" in a way that almost no one, including other scientists, would use it.
Perhaps. I did learn of the distinction between the two words from two evolutionary scientists -- one of whom was Stephen J. Gould -- speaking on the difference between science and faith.
I have found that using two different words helps people understand the important difference between the two types of "belief".
The clear majority of climate scientists *accept* anthropogenic global warming (AGW) -- they don't *believe* in it. "Accept" connotes a willingness to follow the evidence -- wherever it may lead. "Believe" connotes faith. As a scientist, I accept the theory of AGW as it would be perverse to withhold acceptance in the face of such overwhelming evidence. If better evidence is found, I'm willing to change. Believers aren't willing to change as their beliefs don't, in general, depend upon evidence.
I note that Willie H. Soon is also not highly ranked amongst climate science authors. See <http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html>.
Why would you believe an anonymous someone who, by their own admission, went out of their way to avoid paying customary fees to the organizer of the event?
I'm inclined to agree that software engineering isn't sufficiently mature to be an engineering discipline. It's possible to analyze a bridge to determine under what conditions it might collapse. I can't do that for the software I create. The best I can do is to say that under these inputs and these conditions, it performed correctly.
I would add that you should try to hide the implementation of your customizations behind modules that can be easily adapted to use a standard extension if and when one becomes available.
I'm currently working my way through "The Pragmatic Programmer" by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas. It contains much generic wisdom and considerable scope.
According to the US constitution, the only justification for software patents is that they "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
I've been writing software for 39 years and have come to believe that, on balance, software patents do no such thing and should, consequently, be abolished.
I agree. From what I've read about botnets, one of their defining characteristics is that the originators of the attacks cannot be identified. The computers in the botnet can be identified, but the attackers home computers are hidden.
It seems to me that this renders the retaliatory aspect of a military botnet impotent.
Slashdot Mirror
I've often wondered if pair programming, coupled with an appropriate voting system, would allow compensation to be distributed more fairly. The developers would all experience their relative levels of expertise and could rate themselves accordingly. Naturally, the voting system would have to be carefully chosen.
The first-past-the-post (or plurality) voting system used in most public elections in the United States is arguably the worst possible choice of voting systems because it favors two parties, is relatively easy to manipulate, is relatively easy to gerrymander, wastes votes, and has resulted in a dysfunctional congress. It should be replaced in all elections with a superior system (e.g., Approval voting, a Condorcet method, Majority Judgment, or Range voting).
As it stands now, members of congress apparently spend 40 to 60% of their time *on the job* seeking campaign donations. This raises reasonable doubt as to their true constituency. Public funding of all elections would eliminate this source of potential corruption at a cost that is much less than the benefit to society.
I read the article criticizing the NYT article and noticed that none of the counter-arguments addressed the NYT's main point: that most of the power goes to idle systems.
Have the managers watch this video by Mary Poppendiek http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MSYlqx1Yvqk. If the situation persists, then either accept it or leave.
> As another scientist, you are using the word "belief" in a way that almost no one, including other scientists, would use it. Perhaps. I did learn of the distinction between the two words from two evolutionary scientists -- one of whom was Stephen J. Gould -- speaking on the difference between science and faith. I have found that using two different words helps people understand the important difference between the two types of "belief".
The clear majority of climate scientists *accept* anthropogenic global warming (AGW) -- they don't *believe* in it. "Accept" connotes a willingness to follow the evidence -- wherever it may lead. "Believe" connotes faith. As a scientist, I accept the theory of AGW as it would be perverse to withhold acceptance in the face of such overwhelming evidence. If better evidence is found, I'm willing to change. Believers aren't willing to change as their beliefs don't, in general, depend upon evidence.
I note that Willie H. Soon is also not highly ranked amongst climate science authors. See <http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html>.
Find a lawyer who will work in the hopes of getting a portion of the settlement. That way, the cost to you will be minimal.
Why would you believe an anonymous someone who, by their own admission, went out of their way to avoid paying customary fees to the organizer of the event?
I'm inclined to agree that software engineering isn't sufficiently mature to be an engineering discipline. It's possible to analyze a bridge to determine under what conditions it might collapse. I can't do that for the software I create. The best I can do is to say that under these inputs and these conditions, it performed correctly.
I would add that you should try to hide the implementation of your customizations behind modules that can be easily adapted to use a standard extension if and when one becomes available.
I'm currently working my way through "The Pragmatic Programmer" by Andrew Hunt and David Thomas. It contains much generic wisdom and considerable scope.
...
Fact is, it is possible to prove the correctness or otherwise of a computer program, so it's mathematics.
While I agree with your thesis, in general, the above assertion is false given the halting problem.
According to the US constitution, the only justification for software patents is that they "promote the progress of science and useful arts". I've been writing software for 39 years and have come to believe that, on balance, software patents do no such thing and should, consequently, be abolished.
I agree. From what I've read about botnets, one of their defining characteristics is that the originators of the attacks cannot be identified. The computers in the botnet can be identified, but the attackers home computers are hidden. It seems to me that this renders the retaliatory aspect of a military botnet impotent.