By your own numbers, the labels gets $8.01 of the $17.00 (3.34 + 2.15 + 1.08 +.85 +.59). You're comparing the labels' net profit with everyone else's gross income.
It sounds like they weren't really doing extreme programming then. They may have been following some of the principles of it, and calling it "XP".
If you're going to judge the effectiveness of a methodology, you have you include the shops that tried to use it and screwed up horribly, so you can get some idea of your odds of joining them.
(Incidentally, this is a major problem with claims I've seen about the SEI-CMM model (eg. in McConnel's After the Gold Rush). He cites statistics that "prove" CMM is highly effective by only counting shops where it worked. Where it doesn't he says, "well, those shops aren't really using CMM so they don't count." This begs the question, and you can prove anything that way.)
Re:The importance of clear design
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 1
This is incorrect--the "cute rocket icons" chart was made later, for the congressional inquiry. The engineers faxed several scribbled tables to Thoikol management, but none of them actually showed temperature vs. damage (one was temperature vs. flight, another was damage vs. flight.) So they failed to present the correlation clearly, but it wasn't because they were spending their time making pretty charts.
Tufte has this right in his book, but people seem to misread it a lot.
Um, how exactly does a microprocessor "transmit its serial number across the internet"? Does it come with Netscape and a cellular modem embedded in hardware?
Attention, people: software can broadcast your identity with our without a chip ID number. And if your software doesn't send the ID number (or sends a fake), then web servers can't see it. I haven't seen any Intel announcements about shipping magic fingers with which someone can poke around inside your computer over a phone line.
There could be problems with software companies that use the serial number to restrict licenses to a single machine, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with privacy issues.
Um, how exactly does a microprocessor "transmit its serial number across the internet"? Does it come with Netscape and a cellular modem embedded in hardware?
Attention, people: software can broadcast your identity with our without a chip ID number. And if your software doesn't send the ID number, then web servers can't see it. I haven't seen any Intel announcements about shipping magic fingers with which they can poke around inside someone your computer over a phone line.
A more realistic worry is that software companies will start using the serial number to restrict licenses to a single machine, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with privacy issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Lie with numbers! Fun for the whole family.
If you're going to judge the effectiveness of a methodology, you have you include the shops that tried to use it and screwed up horribly, so you can get some idea of your odds of joining them.
(Incidentally, this is a major problem with claims I've seen about the SEI-CMM model (eg. in McConnel's After the Gold Rush). He cites statistics that "prove" CMM is highly effective by only counting shops where it worked. Where it doesn't he says, "well, those shops aren't really using CMM so they don't count." This begs the question, and you can prove anything that way.)
This is incorrect--the "cute rocket icons" chart was made later, for the congressional inquiry. The engineers faxed several scribbled tables to Thoikol management, but none of them actually showed temperature vs. damage (one was temperature vs. flight, another was damage vs. flight.) So they failed to present the correlation clearly, but it wasn't because they were spending their time making pretty charts.
Tufte has this right in his book, but people seem to misread it a lot.
--Jeff
Attention, people: software can broadcast your identity with our without a chip ID number. And if your software doesn't send the ID number (or sends a fake), then web servers can't see it. I haven't seen any Intel announcements about shipping magic fingers with which someone can poke around inside your computer over a phone line.
There could be problems with software companies that use the serial number to restrict licenses to a single machine, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with privacy issues.
Attention, people: software can broadcast your identity with our without a chip ID number. And if your software doesn't send the ID number, then web servers can't see it. I haven't seen any Intel announcements about shipping magic fingers with which they can poke around inside someone your computer over a phone line.
A more realistic worry is that software companies will start using the serial number to restrict licenses to a single machine, but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with privacy issues.