Because Carnegie Mellon licensing CMM and taking in buttloads of dollars in CMM certifications wasnt a scam. If you reach CMM 5, you're free of software thetans.
You don't need certification or outside training to practice Agile methods. There may be some helpful training services, but they should be about learning new ideas and figuring out how to apply them to your environment (and when not to), not reaching new levels of certification or decorating resumes.
At the end of the day, a company needs to find the process that works for its developers. No process, off the shelf or otherwise, is going to make up for mediocrity or poor morale. Some places will work well with Scrum practices, some with Kanban, others with XP, and some with traditional Waterfall.
If I had to pick a generic characteristic of a development team most likely to lead to success, it would be adaptability.
I know someone who bricked his iPhone trying to jailbreak it, and put it Ito the microwave to intentionally destroy it so he could get a replacement. Granted, he didn't put it in there long enough to toast the thing, just destroy the electronics.
Of course I don't know if something similar happened here, but I don't think it's out of the question.
I'm guessing once the device had hit water, he decided to toast it in the microwave with the hopes of still getting a replacement citing a defective device.
Especially since those going to w3 schools are likely web developers, and IE traditionally sucks for actually doing web development on it.
Usually you do your development with Firefox+Firebug (or maybe Chrome), and then you figure out how to get it working on IE if you have to.
Nevertheless, they're showing trends on the same website over time, and IE was up in the 80+% range when it was just the big two browsers, so it's not a completely useless number.
Most of those sick fucks you see in healthcare, however, don't have the means to take over a state and get access to its nuclear arsenal. They tend to self-destruct long before that point. And those who do get that far still have to maintain enough of a hold on power to override the objections of more rational subordinates.
I wouldn't want to bet the survival of the species on it, but the closer an insane leader got to launching a preemptive nuclear attack, the closer they would get to being ignored, overthrown, and/or assassinated.
The flaw in the logic that a truly whacko religious state that sees death as a pathway to virgins (assuming that's a good thing) would just kill themselves.
But the leaders of such a state rarely actually believe that. bin Laden was perfectly happy to send impressionable youths to their suicide-murder deaths while he was watching porn with his (non-virginal) wives at his hideouts.
Now, if someone like bin Laden got their hands on a nuclear weapon, I don't doubt he or she'd use it. They are non-state actors who are not easily targetable (though in the long run it's a poor calculation for them too, as bin Laden learned). I doubt the Ayatollah of Iran would make the same calculation. If it was clear that there was no way to carry out a nuclear strike that wouldn't be traced back to him, the Ayatollah is not going to carry one out. They are survivors, and turning their country into glass is not a very good survival strategy for them.
I am not a proponent of nuclear proliferation, but the key is to make sure that where there is proliferation, the weapons remain in the hands of the state leadership. As long as they have something to lose (their power base, which they spent considerable time in achieving and maintaining), they are much less likely to trigger a nuclear exchange.
I am much less worried about a rogue state directly engaging in a nuclear strike than I am about nuclear states miscalculating and backing themselves into corners they cannot get out of. For instance, had Kennedy ordered an invasion of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis as some advised, it would have most likely led to some level of nuclear war. Instead, the administration made it clear to the Soviets what the stakes were: it wasn't just Cuba that would be annihilated in a counter-attack, it was Russia. With those stakes established, the rational heads prevailed. Khrushchev realized it wasn't in his or the USSR's interested to rest their fate in the hands of a Cuban revolutionary leader of a tiny client state.
During Prohibition, the incidence of illness die to lead poisoning increased dramatically, however.
When did we start handing away our freedom to (hypothetically) increase life expectancies? That seems even more repugnant than exchanging freedom for security.
Is there any evidence that the War on Drugs has provided a net benefit to society? If public health is what you're looking to maximize, wouldn't it make more sense to take most of that money and spend it on health care?
It's about time that "law enforcement crack down on the substances", cause if there's one thing we've learned in the past 40 years it's that we don't have enough law enforcement cracking down on substances.
True, but they could (and maybe did?) also make it illegal to possess a gun that has been so modified (presumably with a grandfather clause). It's certainly not failsafe, but then if they have a suspect in possession of a gun that should have an engraved firing pin but doesn't, they can nail them with a charge for that, whether they can prove the original crime or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Carnegie Mellon licensing CMM and taking in buttloads of dollars in CMM certifications wasnt a scam. If you reach CMM 5, you're free of software thetans.
You don't need certification or outside training to practice Agile methods. There may be some helpful training services, but they should be about learning new ideas and figuring out how to apply them to your environment (and when not to), not reaching new levels of certification or decorating resumes.
At the end of the day, a company needs to find the process that works for its developers. No process, off the shelf or otherwise, is going to make up for mediocrity or poor morale. Some places will work well with Scrum practices, some with Kanban, others with XP, and some with traditional Waterfall.
If I had to pick a generic characteristic of a development team most likely to lead to success, it would be adaptability.
Sky watchers should be alert for auroras this weekend.
Just make the Millenarians take care of them.
I know someone who bricked his iPhone trying to jailbreak it, and put it Ito the microwave to intentionally destroy it so he could get a replacement. Granted, he didn't put it in there long enough to toast the thing, just destroy the electronics.
Of course I don't know if something similar happened here, but I don't think it's out of the question.
Why is that more likely? Pessimistic view of human intelligence?
I'm guessing once the device had hit water, he decided to toast it in the microwave with the hopes of still getting a replacement citing a defective device.
Especially since those going to w3 schools are likely web developers, and IE traditionally sucks for actually doing web development on it.
Usually you do your development with Firefox+Firebug (or maybe Chrome), and then you figure out how to get it working on IE if you have to.
Nevertheless, they're showing trends on the same website over time, and IE was up in the 80+% range when it was just the big two browsers, so it's not a completely useless number.
Humans don't need parasites to be attracted to cats. Kittens work for that purpose just fine.
Well, they also help defend against the Plague by killing the carriers.
So hospitals will need to review everyone's marriage contracts to find out if it includes visiting rights?
This sounds like the work of Scarecrow. A Dark Knight Rises ad campaign?
Technically, all of the components of Little Boy were ready by July 26th... so, 11 days.
Most of those sick fucks you see in healthcare, however, don't have the means to take over a state and get access to its nuclear arsenal. They tend to self-destruct long before that point. And those who do get that far still have to maintain enough of a hold on power to override the objections of more rational subordinates.
I wouldn't want to bet the survival of the species on it, but the closer an insane leader got to launching a preemptive nuclear attack, the closer they would get to being ignored, overthrown, and/or assassinated.
The flaw in the logic that a truly whacko religious state that sees death as a pathway to virgins (assuming that's a good thing) would just kill themselves.
But the leaders of such a state rarely actually believe that. bin Laden was perfectly happy to send impressionable youths to their suicide-murder deaths while he was watching porn with his (non-virginal) wives at his hideouts.
Now, if someone like bin Laden got their hands on a nuclear weapon, I don't doubt he or she'd use it. They are non-state actors who are not easily targetable (though in the long run it's a poor calculation for them too, as bin Laden learned). I doubt the Ayatollah of Iran would make the same calculation. If it was clear that there was no way to carry out a nuclear strike that wouldn't be traced back to him, the Ayatollah is not going to carry one out. They are survivors, and turning their country into glass is not a very good survival strategy for them.
I am not a proponent of nuclear proliferation, but the key is to make sure that where there is proliferation, the weapons remain in the hands of the state leadership. As long as they have something to lose (their power base, which they spent considerable time in achieving and maintaining), they are much less likely to trigger a nuclear exchange.
I am much less worried about a rogue state directly engaging in a nuclear strike than I am about nuclear states miscalculating and backing themselves into corners they cannot get out of. For instance, had Kennedy ordered an invasion of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis as some advised, it would have most likely led to some level of nuclear war. Instead, the administration made it clear to the Soviets what the stakes were: it wasn't just Cuba that would be annihilated in a counter-attack, it was Russia. With those stakes established, the rational heads prevailed. Khrushchev realized it wasn't in his or the USSR's interested to rest their fate in the hands of a Cuban revolutionary leader of a tiny client state.
"Device to Keep Me From Using a Time-Warner DVR"
People consuming drugs is only a crime problem because someone decided that consuming certain drugs should be illegal.
During Prohibition, the incidence of illness die to lead poisoning increased dramatically, however.
When did we start handing away our freedom to (hypothetically) increase life expectancies? That seems even more repugnant than exchanging freedom for security.
Is there any evidence that the War on Drugs has provided a net benefit to society? If public health is what you're looking to maximize, wouldn't it make more sense to take most of that money and spend it on health care?
It's about time that "law enforcement crack down on the substances", cause if there's one thing we've learned in the past 40 years it's that we don't have enough law enforcement cracking down on substances.
A browser that can consume all available memory *and* offer a simple UI!
Which, if taken to heart, would kill what little remains of Linux 3D gaming. To the server racks with ye, Linux!
And then... the invasion...
True, but they could (and maybe did?) also make it illegal to possess a gun that has been so modified (presumably with a grandfather clause). It's certainly not failsafe, but then if they have a suspect in possession of a gun that should have an engraved firing pin but doesn't, they can nail them with a charge for that, whether they can prove the original crime or not.
Yeah, but they used to buy promising technology, not companies already on the way down.
The only reason to buy Nokia or RIM would be to go patent trolling.
Anything to avoid creating a good product themselves, amiright?
Cause god forbid our kids ever drink any water.