This is really unbelievable. What on earth could possibly constitute that large a fine? At worst I'd say the marketing campaign is guilty of littering.
I watch about 3 shows a week. That's about $6 a week which equates to $24 a month versus my cable bill which is $45. If I buy them through iTunes I also don't have to watch the ads.
I completely agree with this. You've put it better than I have.
The problem is not in developing software.
The problem is not knowing what software you're developing before you begin. The problem is people not understanding their role in the project before they begin.
Of course this is amplified the larger projects you take on, but they are not unsolvable problems.
Again, I've never said there won't be problems. I'm simply against the tone that large software projects are inherently difficult with volumes of problems that are nigh insurmountable which is the tone of the opposing view in the original article and the discussion thread.
You've just described your problems, not mine. What makes you think that these problems are universal? Why don't you get it right on the first time, or second time, or third time? The only reason things don't work out is you either haven't planned them well enough, don't understand the problem, or you've failed. There's nothing wrong with failure, we all learn from it, but it's not an excuse.
No I'm not an easy person to work with. I expect everyone to give their best, and do the work they say they can do. I expect them to inform me if there are having difficulty before the deadline so that I can get them help or get them on something else while the problem is addressed.
I think what you're describing to me are failures you've experienced working in large groups. They are not universal or necessary. It does get progressively harder to manage groups as they get larger, and there are many more variables to consider, but just because JoBlowCo can't get it done, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
I didn't say there wouldn't be problems. I said it wasn't hard.
In my experience the only time it becomes difficult is when people are NOT doing their jobs. That's a people problem which should be addressed outside of the scope of the software project. Yeah, it effects you a great deal, but in any large project you need to know you can count on your team.
The only other problem I've encountered with software development are when people have unrealistic expectations, despite me telling them exactly what to expect and delivering on exactly that.
I stand by my original comment. I've worked with multi gig source trees, perhaps not quite 10 gigs. The largest project I've personally managed was 125 member team. Perhaps your situation is a different scale... I really don't think so.
To all reading and replying to this, it was not intention to portray apple software as perfect. I definitely didn't mean to imply that developing it was easy. I'm just saying as a company apple products are far above the norm, and their design philosophy with regards to the end user is equal to none.
I totally agree that most software sucks. I'll even admit that some apple software sucks, but since switching (almost 2 years back now,) my world has completely changed. I'm no longer frustrated most of the time when working with my computers.
I've been a software developer for near a decade. There's two extremes to this, ignoring your customer, and letting them run the development, both are bad. The best path is to have some intelligent people in your company that sit in between customers and clients and act as a translation layer. Throw out the ideas you can't implement, give them the good ones. These people have to be at least partially developers themselves, they serve as architects as well as PR.
No. It's no more a medical condition than football fanaticism or religion. It's just one of many things people go fanatical over.
When people can't maintain their normal balance they latch on to some activity or item that they derive pleasure from and it can begin to consume them. All the behaviors associated with their psychological addiction can influence their health, but that's not necessarily always the case. Sure there's the guy that sits refreshing blogs all day, straining his eyes, developing blood clots in his legs, eating badly and not getting exercise but it's caused by his lack of balance, or will power. It's entirely a matter of choice.
As long as freedom of choice exists many people will make bad choices, but I much prefer that to the alternatives.
I don't think this idea is extreme, it's simply logical. You are correct that it's a reaction to my past experiences though. I never received hand outs, I never expected them, nor wanted them. I don't think others should expect them. I don't think we should steal from those that have that give to those that have not.
As far as suffering, well if my current life style is suffering then I'm all for it!
I've never been given handouts, occasionally they've been offered but I've refused them--with thanks. It's a matter of personal morals and ethics. I have accepted loans, and been grateful for them!
It's irrational. Someone had to put effort into a product or service to make it available, they should receive compensation for the value they created.
The compensation does not have to be monetary or even physical, if someone chooses to give something away without compensation of their own free will, that's their prerogative. In reality when people give to charity (out of volition rather than requirement,) they are doing it out of their own values, and so are receiving their own intrinsic compensation.
The moment anyone is required by law to give up their best efforts without compensation it becomes theft. A zero based system cannot sustain itself, the value has to come from somewhere and so must the compensation. Take one of them out of the chain and the entire system will collapse into nothing. There will be no value to be had.
A lot of the US's welfare systems are already like this. They have good intentions of course, but they do not work. A couple thousand dollars a year can make the difference of getting everything for free from the government and not having to work for it at all, or working two jobs, going to school, barely eating and getting by. It's the person that makes slightly more that is in the bad situation here because of the way these zero based programs are structured. The person making more is being taxed heavily and receiving none of the benefits of the person making $2000 less a year who's paying no taxes. This is a real world example, without anything fabricated.
I'd say that's up to the doctor. I don't believe anyone is completely unable of paying for something. Perhaps if they're already on their death bed and there's no hope of recovery this situation something other than a hypothetical.
I don't really think there's many situations where someone should be denied healthcare, but that said I don't believe anyone should get anything for free.
These are not mutually exclusive ideas. There's plenty of ways to deal with people unable to pay large bills up front. I won't go into how broken the US healthcare/insurance industry is, but it's not a difficult proposition to setup wage garnishment, or payment plans after recovery. But let's follow the cut of our jib a bit.
Currently donated organs have a rigorous set of criteria potential recipients must receive. It's not really any different from that. They're not going to give a chain smoker a new lung, or an alcoholic a new liver.
In my youth whenever I had to get something other than a routine checkup or shot I had to go on a payment plan. I had to cut corners if I had to miss work, but I managed.
What makes you think I want your attention? I enjoy discussion, but not for attention, for the exchange of ideas. My confidence comes from my success in every aspect of my life that I've put effort into. I don't claim to know everything, I'm just sharing what has worked well for me (overwhelmingly so.)
I do have a seemingly simplistic view of the world. Everything I put forth follows from my morals and reason. Of course posts like these are oversimplified because the issues at hand require volumes upon volumes to cover every last detail. That doesn't mean the basic principles are NOT simple though.
You haven't offered any ideas in your post, just criticized mine. Aren't you just contributed to my so called blinders?
I personally don't believe in safety nets. It's not that I think they should be abolished, but as they stand now a lot of people in these situations can't take advantage of them anyway, and a lot more people abuse them.
I didn't have any form of health insurance from the time I was 2 to the time I was 20.
If the safety nets are to exist, it needs to be in an entirely redone form, they don't work currently and are just a huge drain of resources because of those who are able to abuse them.
Ok, well I think our fundamental disagreement then is that the disparity is all that bad.
I guess the crux of my view is that the disparity itself is not a problem, despite the fact it can be prone to abuse. I think we're doing progressively better in the US, and even the world in general. Yes there's still plenty of horrible situations, but I think a lot of progress has been made, and will continue to be made. The disparity could very well exist far into the future even with poverty as we know it now eliminated. There may be a new poverty where people are comparatively destitute, but still have all the basic necessities, and even a good level of comfort.
I think trying to fight the disparity will do a lot more harm than good, and that it's morally wrong to try and redistribute wealth. It would be excellent if we could get a better handle on those that abuse their wealth criminally, and that may very well help mitigate the lowest end of the spectrum, but there are plenty of examples of people rightfully earning ridiculous fortunes that don't need to be punished for their success.
Slashdot Mirror
And that lesson is, Boston is run by idiots.
This is really unbelievable. What on earth could possibly constitute that large a fine? At worst I'd say the marketing campaign is guilty of littering.
I watch about 3 shows a week. That's about $6 a week which equates to $24 a month versus my cable bill which is $45. If I buy them through iTunes I also don't have to watch the ads.
Obviously this is a DEAL for me.
This will work for about 3 weeks to a month after this article was published and then be completely useless. Plus it delays real mail.
No, I think the linux kernel project is managed well. I didn't mean to specify a type of management, just quality.
I completely agree with this. You've put it better than I have.
The problem is not in developing software.
The problem is not knowing what software you're developing before you begin.
The problem is people not understanding their role in the project before they begin.
Of course this is amplified the larger projects you take on, but they are not unsolvable problems.
Nice :)
The alarm clock is the new dog. It has since been adjusted.
You guys weren't the reason I got a huge surge of comment spam last night where you?
Again, I've never said there won't be problems. I'm simply against the tone that large software projects are inherently difficult with volumes of problems that are nigh insurmountable which is the tone of the opposing view in the original article and the discussion thread.
You've just described your problems, not mine. What makes you think that these problems are universal? Why don't you get it right on the first time, or second time, or third time? The only reason things don't work out is you either haven't planned them well enough, don't understand the problem, or you've failed. There's nothing wrong with failure, we all learn from it, but it's not an excuse.
No I'm not an easy person to work with. I expect everyone to give their best, and do the work they say they can do. I expect them to inform me if there are having difficulty before the deadline so that I can get them help or get them on something else while the problem is addressed.
I think what you're describing to me are failures you've experienced working in large groups. They are not universal or necessary. It does get progressively harder to manage groups as they get larger, and there are many more variables to consider, but just because JoBlowCo can't get it done, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
Same problem here. Though for some reason the target nearby regularly has a handful of PS3's available.
I didn't say there wouldn't be problems. I said it wasn't hard.
In my experience the only time it becomes difficult is when people are NOT doing their jobs. That's a people problem which should be addressed outside of the scope of the software project. Yeah, it effects you a great deal, but in any large project you need to know you can count on your team.
The only other problem I've encountered with software development are when people have unrealistic expectations, despite me telling them exactly what to expect and delivering on exactly that.
I stand by my original comment. I've worked with multi gig source trees, perhaps not quite 10 gigs. The largest project I've personally managed was 125 member team. Perhaps your situation is a different scale... I really don't think so.
You just have to have a good system and management if it's a large project. That's all.
To all reading and replying to this, it was not intention to portray apple software as perfect. I definitely didn't mean to imply that developing it was easy. I'm just saying as a company apple products are far above the norm, and their design philosophy with regards to the end user is equal to none.
I totally agree that most software sucks. I'll even admit that some apple software sucks, but since switching (almost 2 years back now,) my world has completely changed. I'm no longer frustrated most of the time when working with my computers.
I've been a software developer for near a decade. There's two extremes to this, ignoring your customer, and letting them run the development, both are bad. The best path is to have some intelligent people in your company that sit in between customers and clients and act as a translation layer. Throw out the ideas you can't implement, give them the good ones. These people have to be at least partially developers themselves, they serve as architects as well as PR.
Customer Ideas -> Architects -> Code Monkeys
I didn't think that linux on PS3 and XNA were even remotely related. Different technologies, different purposes.
No. It's no more a medical condition than football fanaticism or religion. It's just one of many things people go fanatical over.
When people can't maintain their normal balance they latch on to some activity or item that they derive pleasure from and it can begin to consume them. All the behaviors associated with their psychological addiction can influence their health, but that's not necessarily always the case. Sure there's the guy that sits refreshing blogs all day, straining his eyes, developing blood clots in his legs, eating badly and not getting exercise but it's caused by his lack of balance, or will power. It's entirely a matter of choice.
As long as freedom of choice exists many people will make bad choices, but I much prefer that to the alternatives.
What have I received?
I don't think this idea is extreme, it's simply logical. You are correct that it's a reaction to my past experiences though. I never received hand outs, I never expected them, nor wanted them. I don't think others should expect them. I don't think we should steal from those that have that give to those that have not.
As far as suffering, well if my current life style is suffering then I'm all for it!
Ungrateful for what?
I've never been given handouts, occasionally they've been offered but I've refused them--with thanks. It's a matter of personal morals and ethics. I have accepted loans, and been grateful for them!
It's irrational. Someone had to put effort into a product or service to make it available, they should receive compensation for the value they created.
The compensation does not have to be monetary or even physical, if someone chooses to give something away without compensation of their own free will, that's their prerogative. In reality when people give to charity (out of volition rather than requirement,) they are doing it out of their own values, and so are receiving their own intrinsic compensation.
The moment anyone is required by law to give up their best efforts without compensation it becomes theft. A zero based system cannot sustain itself, the value has to come from somewhere and so must the compensation. Take one of them out of the chain and the entire system will collapse into nothing. There will be no value to be had.
A lot of the US's welfare systems are already like this. They have good intentions of course, but they do not work. A couple thousand dollars a year can make the difference of getting everything for free from the government and not having to work for it at all, or working two jobs, going to school, barely eating and getting by. It's the person that makes slightly more that is in the bad situation here because of the way these zero based programs are structured. The person making more is being taxed heavily and receiving none of the benefits of the person making $2000 less a year who's paying no taxes. This is a real world example, without anything fabricated.
I'd say that's up to the doctor. I don't believe anyone is completely unable of paying for something. Perhaps if they're already on their death bed and there's no hope of recovery this situation something other than a hypothetical.
I don't really think there's many situations where someone should be denied healthcare, but that said I don't believe anyone should get anything for free.
These are not mutually exclusive ideas. There's plenty of ways to deal with people unable to pay large bills up front. I won't go into how broken the US healthcare/insurance industry is, but it's not a difficult proposition to setup wage garnishment, or payment plans after recovery. But let's follow the cut of our jib a bit.
Currently donated organs have a rigorous set of criteria potential recipients must receive. It's not really any different from that. They're not going to give a chain smoker a new lung, or an alcoholic a new liver.
In my youth whenever I had to get something other than a routine checkup or shot I had to go on a payment plan. I had to cut corners if I had to miss work, but I managed.
What makes you think I want your attention? I enjoy discussion, but not for attention, for the exchange of ideas. My confidence comes from my success in every aspect of my life that I've put effort into. I don't claim to know everything, I'm just sharing what has worked well for me (overwhelmingly so.)
I do have a seemingly simplistic view of the world. Everything I put forth follows from my morals and reason. Of course posts like these are oversimplified because the issues at hand require volumes upon volumes to cover every last detail. That doesn't mean the basic principles are NOT simple though.
You haven't offered any ideas in your post, just criticized mine. Aren't you just contributed to my so called blinders?
I personally don't believe in safety nets. It's not that I think they should be abolished, but as they stand now a lot of people in these situations can't take advantage of them anyway, and a lot more people abuse them.
I didn't have any form of health insurance from the time I was 2 to the time I was 20.
If the safety nets are to exist, it needs to be in an entirely redone form, they don't work currently and are just a huge drain of resources because of those who are able to abuse them.
Key point: virtually.
And the alternative is to steal from those who've rightfully earned it.
Ok, well I think our fundamental disagreement then is that the disparity is all that bad.
I guess the crux of my view is that the disparity itself is not a problem, despite the fact it can be prone to abuse. I think we're doing progressively better in the US, and even the world in general. Yes there's still plenty of horrible situations, but I think a lot of progress has been made, and will continue to be made. The disparity could very well exist far into the future even with poverty as we know it now eliminated. There may be a new poverty where people are comparatively destitute, but still have all the basic necessities, and even a good level of comfort.
I think trying to fight the disparity will do a lot more harm than good, and that it's morally wrong to try and redistribute wealth. It would be excellent if we could get a better handle on those that abuse their wealth criminally, and that may very well help mitigate the lowest end of the spectrum, but there are plenty of examples of people rightfully earning ridiculous fortunes that don't need to be punished for their success.
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had all week. Cheers!