"When the deadline comes, would you rather the project be incomplete but ready for delivery, or would you rather push back delivery in favor of complete and correct software?"
Ideally, the software is complete and correct by the deadline... failing that, I settle for just getting the software to the state that the client is satisfied, even if I myself am not. I cannot and will not ever in good conscience let software go that has any known major issues, but in practice I've always been able to mitigate any major issues before the final deadline or else somebody else managing the project, and with considerably more people skills than I could ever hope to have, manages to convince the client that the features that are causing the major issue are somehow not viable for the client to expect, and the scope of the project gets simplified so that the project still ends up shipping with no known major bugs.
I *am* a star wars fan. And I didn't really mind jar-jar that much. It's just a movie character, not the personification of racial insensitivity that so many people think he is.
The first thing you did wrong is that you estimated 2 months, without taking any time to break down how you were going to spend each and every day of that two months. If you had done that, you would have realized you were falling behind schedule within the first week.
In my experience, any estimate that's longer than 1 day, and often even as little as half a day, generally should require breaking down, so that it is clear exactly what needs to be complete. You break the programming tasks down almost to an atomic level, so that every discrete function of the software is described, along with how long it will take to implement each one. Sometimes you don't know how long something will really take, but that's okay... the time it takes to estimate a project should be factored into the time it will take to complete it. Breaking things down at this level also gives you a clearer idea of the technical requirements to complete the job in the first place, which helps you design technical solutions as you make headway in the project. Further, it gives you a metric once you are partway through a project to determine based on how much of the project you've actually completed within a given time, whether you are even going to complete the project within budget, and if not, institute measures to minimize losses. In practice, you're not going to be right every time, or even necessarily close to being right, but when broken down to this level, the overestimates and underestimates should balance out reasonably well, with perhaps a tolerance of up to about 10 or 20%. If they don't, then there's something else fundamentally wrong with the project, and as a first guess, I'd suggest that it may be on account of unclear program requirements,
It doesn't matter whether or not a project "can" be set to a specific schedule... a client will still expect a deliverable on date X.... and if there isn't, well... the client will simply stop paying you (sometimes there are even penalties imposed for lateness), and you have to finish it for free. Given the choice between doing jobs for those kinds of clients or not having a job at all... I'll take the option that keeps my mortgage payments up.
No, actually, you look like a crappy estimator. In game development especially, projects don't typically have enough of a development budget to afford to overestimate by a factor of 3, so when you tell somebody it's going to take 3 days to do a task you think you can actually finish in one, the producer's only going to ask for a detailed breakdown and justification about why it's going to take so long... and when you end up describing how it will take several hours to implement something you should be able to do in a couple of hours, you're going to come across as incompetent, and possibly even out of a job altogether.
Points 2 and 3 don't seem to apply to me. I know I suck at doing development estimates. When asked for one, I've never been particularly confident about any estimate I give having a good chance of being accurate. I want to estimate conservatively, but project schedules don't allow for that.
I'm pretty sure that they can't repossess something for which no money is actually owed unless it was used as collateral for money that can't otherwise be retrieved.
If I publicly state the CEO of a company is essentially stealing from a voluntary funding program inside said company (think donation jar) for orphans and using it to buy 3 course meals for himself, because I'm angry it's happening and want the world to see how horrible he is, can I seriously be sued for defamation?
I've highlighted part of your question above, because it's key here. First of all, in all probability, the only reason you would ever be angry or want the world to see how horrible he is in the first place has absolutely nothing to do with him, specifically, but is actually centered entirely around the practicing of the offensive activity. Your publication, therefore, would be made more to the point of trying to see justice served than it is to actually cause harm to him, specifically... since any harm that befalls him will only be a natural consequence of his own actions within a just society.
Theoretically, however, if you were to make such claims entirely out of some sense of personal maliciousness against him, particularly if you had over-publicized the occurrence far beyond what was necessary to ensure the execution of justice, then there may be some possibility that defamation might be applicable. It is, however, unlikely that a person convicted of such a crime would have any substantial evidence to support such a notion, since they would have to somehow show that the outrage you felt at what he had done had less to do with the illegal activity itself than it did with him, personally. But even if defamation were somehow provably applicable, it would not help him avoid appropriate legal penalty for his actions.
Did you bother to even read the context of the post to which I responded?
Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.
My point being, of course, that such statements are not libel at all, since libel is, by definition, false. Such statements, however, are defamatory, since they are made with intent to cause harm.
Such intent can often be assumed by a court whenever there is sufficient mitigating evidence to support a particular belief in that regard, or especially if the such statements were evidently made with far more gratuity or publicity than the surrounding circumstances should have actually warranted.
The sort of public negative statements that creditors are allowed to make aren't typically considered defamation, since they aren't made with any particular intent to cause harm, nor are they being made with any particular underlying malicious purpose.
I recall not long after the very first Star Wars film came out in 1978, there was a bit of an outrage over the fact that all of the Empire seemed to have a British accent (although nowhere near the scale of jar-jar hate, at least from what I remember). Similarly, when the Ewoks were introduced, I seem to remember some criticisms about it allegedly being racist towards people from the Philippines, whose language, so I've been told, bears some resemblance to how the Ewoks spoke. That in conjunction with the fact that there should have been no way that these technologically undeveloped "cute and cuddly" creatures should have been able to overwhelm an armed empire squadron led to quite a lot of hate over those characters as well.
So basically, there's no small demographic of people who take the movies *FAR* too seriously and try to read into it much more than what was ever intended, when all the filmmakers were ever trying to do was just tell us a story. If we have nothing better to do than rip it apart, then perhaps our time would have been better spent doing something else. You can't blame the storyteller just because you don't like how the story is going.
Jar Jar *is* supposed to be an alien, after all, and there's some validity to the notion that they would have some sort of accent. Since it's a human playing the part and not a real alien, it's entirely understandable that the accent is probably going to have things in common with some accent spoken on Earth. In this case, it happened to be Jamaican... and somehow, everybody and their dog is so offended by it that they want the character's head on a pike.
Lesley Kemp, 55, took to Twitter claiming that a company based in the Middle East had failed to pay her promptly for transcription work.
Which is what they are evidently suing for, but...
She said she later received an email from the company saying the payment had been delayed because it was experiencing late payments from a number of its own clients.
So by the company's own admission, in the email that she had apparently received, they explicitly acknowledged that the payment was delayed by a greater amount of time than was usual. They might have apologized, but it was still late... and her comment about them being late was made before they attempted to make good on it. Her claim, therefore, was true.
Nobody's forcing you to use the GPL if you think it's unsuitable for you, but really, the GPL is only trying to offer its freedoms to people who may be further removed from the original work, while BSD only offers its freedoms to immediate developers (who admittedly have an additional freedom to exclude people that they distribute to from having the same freedoms on any derivative work that they provide, while the GPL does not offer developers this freedom at a;;).
BSD is about something being free right now, but future versions of the software developed by other parties who may not agree with those terms could alter that arrangement. That the original source may be available doesn't make any modified future versions where the source has been closed up more free than they are. GPL is strictly about *keeping* something free, for as long as the copyright on the work lasts, at the costs of some freedoms for developers of derivative works. BSD is about something being free right now, and letting market forces alone determine whether the source code of future versions will continue to be available.
Only the original work. Derivative works are not necessarily guaranteed to be just as free. The point of the GPL is to ensure that people further downstream from the original work will have access to whatever work they end up with as well.
GPL goes out of its way to ensure that absolutely *everybody*, so long as copyright law is being adhered to, will have the exact same freedoms as any previous developers do. GPL tries to ensure freedom further downstream at the cost of some freedom for developers along the way, while BSD only tries to keep itself as free as possible at the originating work, at the potential cost of some freedoms for developers further downstream from the originating work.
Neither option is always suitable for everybody... and I wouldn't argue that either is really more free than the other.
Like, has a new edition of The C++ Programming Language come out to reflect C++11, and all of its changes? Or are the only complete specifications purely online?
Not all types for which operator overloading would make sense are a number, however.
Vectors and Matrices come to mind as immediate examples, and not all operators even necessarily make sense for both. More generally, any class which represents any kind of algebraic ring could sensibly have very intuitive operator overloading.
Slashdot Mirror
Ideally, the software is complete and correct by the deadline... failing that, I settle for just getting the software to the state that the client is satisfied, even if I myself am not. I cannot and will not ever in good conscience let software go that has any known major issues, but in practice I've always been able to mitigate any major issues before the final deadline or else somebody else managing the project, and with considerably more people skills than I could ever hope to have, manages to convince the client that the features that are causing the major issue are somehow not viable for the client to expect, and the scope of the project gets simplified so that the project still ends up shipping with no known major bugs.
Only one lightning bolt actually. The power output of a lightning bolt is in the terawatt to tens of terawatts range.
I *am* a star wars fan. And I didn't really mind jar-jar that much. It's just a movie character, not the personification of racial insensitivity that so many people think he is.
The first thing you did wrong is that you estimated 2 months, without taking any time to break down how you were going to spend each and every day of that two months. If you had done that, you would have realized you were falling behind schedule within the first week.
In my experience, any estimate that's longer than 1 day, and often even as little as half a day, generally should require breaking down, so that it is clear exactly what needs to be complete. You break the programming tasks down almost to an atomic level, so that every discrete function of the software is described, along with how long it will take to implement each one. Sometimes you don't know how long something will really take, but that's okay... the time it takes to estimate a project should be factored into the time it will take to complete it. Breaking things down at this level also gives you a clearer idea of the technical requirements to complete the job in the first place, which helps you design technical solutions as you make headway in the project. Further, it gives you a metric once you are partway through a project to determine based on how much of the project you've actually completed within a given time, whether you are even going to complete the project within budget, and if not, institute measures to minimize losses. In practice, you're not going to be right every time, or even necessarily close to being right, but when broken down to this level, the overestimates and underestimates should balance out reasonably well, with perhaps a tolerance of up to about 10 or 20%. If they don't, then there's something else fundamentally wrong with the project, and as a first guess, I'd suggest that it may be on account of unclear program requirements,
It doesn't matter whether or not a project "can" be set to a specific schedule... a client will still expect a deliverable on date X.... and if there isn't, well... the client will simply stop paying you (sometimes there are even penalties imposed for lateness), and you have to finish it for free. Given the choice between doing jobs for those kinds of clients or not having a job at all... I'll take the option that keeps my mortgage payments up.
No, actually, you look like a crappy estimator. In game development especially, projects don't typically have enough of a development budget to afford to overestimate by a factor of 3, so when you tell somebody it's going to take 3 days to do a task you think you can actually finish in one, the producer's only going to ask for a detailed breakdown and justification about why it's going to take so long... and when you end up describing how it will take several hours to implement something you should be able to do in a couple of hours, you're going to come across as incompetent, and possibly even out of a job altogether.
Points 2 and 3 don't seem to apply to me. I know I suck at doing development estimates. When asked for one, I've never been particularly confident about any estimate I give having a good chance of being accurate. I want to estimate conservatively, but project schedules don't allow for that.
Woz isn't an asshole. And he never really "hired" Jobs. They cofounded the company.
That often will not work. Especially with .NET stuff.
At least I'm not afraid to post under my id.
[nt]
I'm pretty sure that they can't repossess something for which no money is actually owed unless it was used as collateral for money that can't otherwise be retrieved.
I've highlighted part of your question above, because it's key here. First of all, in all probability, the only reason you would ever be angry or want the world to see how horrible he is in the first place has absolutely nothing to do with him, specifically, but is actually centered entirely around the practicing of the offensive activity. Your publication, therefore, would be made more to the point of trying to see justice served than it is to actually cause harm to him, specifically... since any harm that befalls him will only be a natural consequence of his own actions within a just society.
Theoretically, however, if you were to make such claims entirely out of some sense of personal maliciousness against him, particularly if you had over-publicized the occurrence far beyond what was necessary to ensure the execution of justice, then there may be some possibility that defamation might be applicable. It is, however, unlikely that a person convicted of such a crime would have any substantial evidence to support such a notion, since they would have to somehow show that the outrage you felt at what he had done had less to do with the illegal activity itself than it did with him, personally. But even if defamation were somehow provably applicable, it would not help him avoid appropriate legal penalty for his actions.
Did you bother to even read the context of the post to which I responded?
My point being, of course, that such statements are not libel at all, since libel is, by definition, false. Such statements, however, are defamatory, since they are made with intent to cause harm.
Such intent can often be assumed by a court whenever there is sufficient mitigating evidence to support a particular belief in that regard, or especially if the such statements were evidently made with far more gratuity or publicity than the surrounding circumstances should have actually warranted.
The sort of public negative statements that creditors are allowed to make aren't typically considered defamation, since they aren't made with any particular intent to cause harm, nor are they being made with any particular underlying malicious purpose.
I recall not long after the very first Star Wars film came out in 1978, there was a bit of an outrage over the fact that all of the Empire seemed to have a British accent (although nowhere near the scale of jar-jar hate, at least from what I remember). Similarly, when the Ewoks were introduced, I seem to remember some criticisms about it allegedly being racist towards people from the Philippines, whose language, so I've been told, bears some resemblance to how the Ewoks spoke. That in conjunction with the fact that there should have been no way that these technologically undeveloped "cute and cuddly" creatures should have been able to overwhelm an armed empire squadron led to quite a lot of hate over those characters as well.
So basically, there's no small demographic of people who take the movies *FAR* too seriously and try to read into it much more than what was ever intended, when all the filmmakers were ever trying to do was just tell us a story. If we have nothing better to do than rip it apart, then perhaps our time would have been better spent doing something else. You can't blame the storyteller just because you don't like how the story is going.
Jar Jar *is* supposed to be an alien, after all, and there's some validity to the notion that they would have some sort of accent. Since it's a human playing the part and not a real alien, it's entirely understandable that the accent is probably going to have things in common with some accent spoken on Earth. In this case, it happened to be Jamaican... and somehow, everybody and their dog is so offended by it that they want the character's head on a pike.
Which is what they are evidently suing for, but...
So by the company's own admission, in the email that she had apparently received, they explicitly acknowledged that the payment was delayed by a greater amount of time than was usual. They might have apologized, but it was still late... and her comment about them being late was made before they attempted to make good on it. Her claim, therefore, was true.
Not libel. End of story.
That's not libel, it's defamation.
Nobody's forcing you to use the GPL if you think it's unsuitable for you, but really, the GPL is only trying to offer its freedoms to people who may be further removed from the original work, while BSD only offers its freedoms to immediate developers (who admittedly have an additional freedom to exclude people that they distribute to from having the same freedoms on any derivative work that they provide, while the GPL does not offer developers this freedom at a;;).
BSD is about something being free right now, but future versions of the software developed by other parties who may not agree with those terms could alter that arrangement. That the original source may be available doesn't make any modified future versions where the source has been closed up more free than they are. GPL is strictly about *keeping* something free, for as long as the copyright on the work lasts, at the costs of some freedoms for developers of derivative works. BSD is about something being free right now, and letting market forces alone determine whether the source code of future versions will continue to be available.
Only the original work. Derivative works are not necessarily guaranteed to be just as free. The point of the GPL is to ensure that people further downstream from the original work will have access to whatever work they end up with as well.
Neither option is always suitable for everybody... and I wouldn't argue that either is really more free than the other.
Like, has a new edition of The C++ Programming Language come out to reflect C++11, and all of its changes? Or are the only complete specifications purely online?
Well, the linked post was put up on Tuesday...
But how would it have been more impressive if the post didn't actually get anything right?
Okay.... my first reaction was that's kind of spooky.
But then, every so often, it seems like Nostradamus sort of gets something right too.
Not all types for which operator overloading would make sense are a number, however.
Vectors and Matrices come to mind as immediate examples, and not all operators even necessarily make sense for both. More generally, any class which represents any kind of algebraic ring could sensibly have very intuitive operator overloading.