The customer may be non-technical and not know how to describe the problem accurately. The customer may have requested something impossible. The customer may have conflicting demands. The customer may be unaware of an existing approach that has no drawbacks over their suggested solution. The customer may not have thought the problem through fully and fail to realise the ramifications of what they are proposing. The Daily WTF is full of examples of these kinds of errors.
This is true of any commissioned work process, from software engineering to graphic design. Customers can only be trusted to be aware of their problems, not solutions, and even then it's never perfect. Ideally during the specification process you work closely with the customer to establish a consensus about what will actually be written, but that's still a distinct thing.
No, no, it says quite clearly that they're only merging with Windows 3.1, which is barely Windows by any useful definition. Didn't you RTFA? Jeez, the nerve of some people...
A reduction in nukes is a reduction in nukes. Also on the topic of inflammatory weapons-related conversation points, Nixon believed in fairly strict gun control. Where is your god now? (Your black-and-white, two-party-system, completely facetious and entirely idiomatic god, that is.)
Actually it's possible to get a GED while in prison, which can then open up jobs that net up to almost ten times that ($1.15.) Also, it's non-compulsory, which is kinda a deal-breaker for the definition of slavery. The point is that it's still possible to learn and better yourself from behind bars, and even these marginal jobs help inmates build job skills that reduce the rate of recidivism (repeat offences.)
Well, it does kinda have a giant CSA logo in the corner, complete with awkward bilingual domain name. I'd like to think that at least implies some endorsement, yes?
To break up the wall of responses pointing out the moral and social quandaries of your post, here is some material about how you can, in fact, work while in prison. The rehabilitation of prisoners is not completely a dead concept in the United States, although it is severely weaker than it is in many other Western democracies.
Regarding obesity: the importance of sugar to it is a pretty stale attitude. Current work indicates that the intestinal microbiome is the major responsible factor in obesity; it's not the same as simply eating too much and being overweight. Obese people gain weight faster than others, probably because they lack the ability to get rid of a harmful bacterium that isn't normally so common in the environment. This bacterium most likely gets in due to unsanitary conditions in factory farming, so the cost-saving potential of a well-developed in vitro meat industry could very well eliminate this plight.
Early experiments with in vitro meat had no muscle tone. (Past stories here have pointed this out.) The closest natural experience would be eating a fetus—not exactly good steak.
Sure, a general sense of understanding the project is valuable. But not the customer's desires. Those may not even line up with the actual requirements.
I'm not talking about project management, no, although I understand how "everything going on with a project" could be misconstrued. I specifically meant customer expectations. The "continually" part was about new requests from the customer, not implementation progress or even the formal requirements specification.
Your first post strongly implied that you believe every developer on a team should be directly aware of all of the clients' expectations. That's just as unreasonable as expecting everyone to know the whole design, and I get the feeling you know that. Perhaps you intended something else?
Not every member of a team should have the responsibility to be aware of everything going on with a project. That's too much to communicate continually. The first thing taught in software engineering courses is about translating the customers' needs into manageable requirements specifications, precisely to alleviate that exact situation.
Accepting money. A business "taking" money is a phrase in American English. Other receptive uses of "take" include "any takers?" (anyone interested) and patient intake in hospitals. If someone says "you should not take their money," that is to imply you should not, in good conscience, accept them as a customer because it would be immoral.
Hey, I didn't say prestigious journals were free from scandal or questionable publications. I don't think you'll find that in any field—just that publishing agreements prevent PLoS ONE from acting like a preprint server akin to arXiv.
As a kneejerk reactionary, I am appalled by the insinuation that anyone could ever recognize a futile arms race in advance, much less choose to avoid it!
Outside of physics, we have PLoS ONE. Unlike arXiv, the lack of editing basically ensures that the only stuff that ends up there is crap. Wet-lab science loves prestige. (There are also frequently exclusivity contracts involved.)
There isn't. The money goes to funding the journals themselves and keeping the curation high-quality. Most research money comes from grants: either the government or an interested corporation. Some of the funding for those grants comes from technology transfer or profit, but most comes from tax money. As most subscribers to scientific journals are research institutions anyway, the model you describe would just move money back and forth between universities.
If you have a coding floor, your codebase should generally not have any room for "the work of genius." It should be straight-forward, accessible, and maintainable. Sophisticated optimizations are rarely necessary, except perhaps in kernel mode (scheduling, drivers...) or graphics.
That's basically it, yes. If I had my radical hat on, I might even go so far as to say this is yet more evidence that C (or, in this case C++) is not suitable for non-high-performance application-layer programming... but I dunno, it's getting pretty late.
I somewhat disagree. I think the laughter is more social, in response to the absurdity of the victim's own reaction. No laughter would occur in the absence of observers. The stress would still occur, but the (already synthetic and awkward) laughter would have to be emulated.
It's the same as any other reaction to a prank of shock. Note that the most prominent reactions were when the user was being tapped. Other demographics besides highly social youths would probably not react the same way; plenty of older or more self-important people may simply be bewildered or get mad.
And, at any rate, it's such a glaringly weird facet of human behaviour that any seasoned psychopath should learn to emulate it quickly!
Slashdot Mirror
The customer may be non-technical and not know how to describe the problem accurately. The customer may have requested something impossible. The customer may have conflicting demands. The customer may be unaware of an existing approach that has no drawbacks over their suggested solution. The customer may not have thought the problem through fully and fail to realise the ramifications of what they are proposing. The Daily WTF is full of examples of these kinds of errors.
This is true of any commissioned work process, from software engineering to graphic design. Customers can only be trusted to be aware of their problems, not solutions, and even then it's never perfect. Ideally during the specification process you work closely with the customer to establish a consensus about what will actually be written, but that's still a distinct thing.
You're pretty late to the show here—they do. Emphasis on the "early".
No, no, it says quite clearly that they're only merging with Windows 3.1, which is barely Windows by any useful definition. Didn't you RTFA? Jeez, the nerve of some people...
A reduction in nukes is a reduction in nukes. Also on the topic of inflammatory weapons-related conversation points, Nixon believed in fairly strict gun control. Where is your god now? (Your black-and-white, two-party-system, completely facetious and entirely idiomatic god, that is.)
My point is that you originally said "what the customer wants," which is a poor choice of words for the concepts we're now discussing.
Indeed, which is something that has been done here. Hence the "early" qualifier.
Actually it's possible to get a GED while in prison, which can then open up jobs that net up to almost ten times that ($1.15.) Also, it's non-compulsory, which is kinda a deal-breaker for the definition of slavery. The point is that it's still possible to learn and better yourself from behind bars, and even these marginal jobs help inmates build job skills that reduce the rate of recidivism (repeat offences.)
Well, it does kinda have a giant CSA logo in the corner, complete with awkward bilingual domain name. I'd like to think that at least implies some endorsement, yes?
To break up the wall of responses pointing out the moral and social quandaries of your post, here is some material about how you can, in fact, work while in prison. The rehabilitation of prisoners is not completely a dead concept in the United States, although it is severely weaker than it is in many other Western democracies.
Regarding obesity: the importance of sugar to it is a pretty stale attitude. Current work indicates that the intestinal microbiome is the major responsible factor in obesity; it's not the same as simply eating too much and being overweight. Obese people gain weight faster than others, probably because they lack the ability to get rid of a harmful bacterium that isn't normally so common in the environment. This bacterium most likely gets in due to unsanitary conditions in factory farming, so the cost-saving potential of a well-developed in vitro meat industry could very well eliminate this plight.
What about quaternion coke? What then?
Early experiments with in vitro meat had no muscle tone. (Past stories here have pointed this out.) The closest natural experience would be eating a fetus—not exactly good steak.
Sure, a general sense of understanding the project is valuable. But not the customer's desires. Those may not even line up with the actual requirements.
I'm not talking about project management, no, although I understand how "everything going on with a project" could be misconstrued. I specifically meant customer expectations. The "continually" part was about new requests from the customer, not implementation progress or even the formal requirements specification.
Your first post strongly implied that you believe every developer on a team should be directly aware of all of the clients' expectations. That's just as unreasonable as expecting everyone to know the whole design, and I get the feeling you know that. Perhaps you intended something else?
Not every member of a team should have the responsibility to be aware of everything going on with a project. That's too much to communicate continually. The first thing taught in software engineering courses is about translating the customers' needs into manageable requirements specifications, precisely to alleviate that exact situation.
Accepting money. A business "taking" money is a phrase in American English. Other receptive uses of "take" include "any takers?" (anyone interested) and patient intake in hospitals. If someone says "you should not take their money," that is to imply you should not, in good conscience, accept them as a customer because it would be immoral.
Hey, I didn't say prestigious journals were free from scandal or questionable publications. I don't think you'll find that in any field—just that publishing agreements prevent PLoS ONE from acting like a preprint server akin to arXiv.
As a kneejerk reactionary, I am appalled by the insinuation that anyone could ever recognize a futile arms race in advance, much less choose to avoid it!
Outside of physics, we have PLoS ONE. Unlike arXiv, the lack of editing basically ensures that the only stuff that ends up there is crap. Wet-lab science loves prestige. (There are also frequently exclusivity contracts involved.)
There isn't. The money goes to funding the journals themselves and keeping the curation high-quality. Most research money comes from grants: either the government or an interested corporation. Some of the funding for those grants comes from technology transfer or profit, but most comes from tax money. As most subscribers to scientific journals are research institutions anyway, the model you describe would just move money back and forth between universities.
If you have a coding floor, your codebase should generally not have any room for "the work of genius." It should be straight-forward, accessible, and maintainable. Sophisticated optimizations are rarely necessary, except perhaps in kernel mode (scheduling, drivers...) or graphics.
That's basically it, yes. If I had my radical hat on, I might even go so far as to say this is yet more evidence that C (or, in this case C++) is not suitable for non-high-performance application-layer programming... but I dunno, it's getting pretty late.
That Ada prevails in all things?
Or maybe you were speaking ancient Greek and talking about yourself!
I somewhat disagree. I think the laughter is more social, in response to the absurdity of the victim's own reaction. No laughter would occur in the absence of observers. The stress would still occur, but the (already synthetic and awkward) laughter would have to be emulated.
It's the same as any other reaction to a prank of shock. Note that the most prominent reactions were when the user was being tapped. Other demographics besides highly social youths would probably not react the same way; plenty of older or more self-important people may simply be bewildered or get mad.
And, at any rate, it's such a glaringly weird facet of human behaviour that any seasoned psychopath should learn to emulate it quickly!