One of the key tenants for Agile though is that developers pick the tasks they're going to work on in a sprint.
But some flavors say that developers are supposed to work on all parts of the project. So yes they may be able to pick the individual task but they might not be able to pick a task from an area they prefer.
The problem is that unless your business IS software
Exactly this.
And it gets worse for some flavors of agile, for example where any programmer can get assigned to any task any part of the code, etc.
Aside from the implicit assumption that all parts of the code are equivalent and all programmers are interchangeable, which may be true to some degree for the corporate IT projects that some agile books use as their wonderful success stories and basis, this fights human nature. Some people are productive and happy bouncing around different parts of a project, but others are more product and happier when then get to drill down and focus and become expert in one particular area. Its just the way people are wired, some one way, some the other.
A key to good management is to figure out what work styles and methodologies fit each individual programmer so that their productivity (and hopefully happiness) can be high. That's the problem with these "here is the one true universal answer" methodologies, they fight against human nature. Admittedly this may not be a problem with agile in general but it is a problem in some flavors of agile.
No one, outside of some small specialty manufacturers (including some old-time avionics makers), makes analog meters implemented mechanically any more, if you mean something where a cable turns some gears which turn a needle. They're all electrical and digitally-controlled now, and have been for some time, and for good reason: mechanical meters simply aren't as reliable or accurate.
Depends on the domain. Analog gauges are still popular in SCUBA diving. No batteries required. An analog pressure gauge telling you whats in the tank. Another analog pressure gauge telling you your depth.
OK, this was a while ago... but while on a dive boat about half the divers had analog and half had dive computers. Guess which group the programmers and electrical engineers tended to be in and which group the lawyers and accountants tended to be in?:-)
Great, our communes already smell like a landfill because the greenies make us recycle, and now we all get to smell like they do.
Having once moved from a suburban environment to a ranch environment (horses, cows, etc) I can tell you the odor only bothers you for about three days. After that you still recognized the odors they just no longer have an effect. It seems a persistent ability. Many years after moving back to suburbia I drove near some dairies. While other passengers were nearly gagging I experienced nothing more than the thought "huh, cows".
The stack of errata on any current modern CPU is quite large. It is not just math functions...
I'm not talking about errata, about bugs, I'm talking about the inherent lack of precision when using a FPU. Its a design compromise inherent into all FPUs, inherent into IEEE single and double precision.
That's my point. Its convenient, it works, its *nix. The fanboi'ism and politics, don't care, its as bad as and embarrassing as the Mac zealots. Most software engineers I've encountered just want a working *nix. Whoever delivers gets their usage. Again, notice the popularity of Mac OS X at *nix conferences.
Back in the 90s when I was using a 486DX2 I brought home two CDs from the local computer swapmeet. FreeBSD and Yggdrasil plug and play Linux. Having grown up on BSD in college I first tried FreeBSD. It crashed during install. I tried Yggdrasil, it installed and configured just fine, that's why I used Linux.
Note, configuration includes **autoconfiguing** graphics, audio, and networking. It truly was plug and play. It was only later when I tried other Linux distributions that I became familiar with the absurdity of having to enter in the monitor timing values to get graphics to work. Other Linux distros were truly far behind Yggdrasil.
Today for desktop tasks where *nix provides the better solution I use Mac OS X's BSD environment. Linux is for the headless servers in the closet and for devices like a raspberry pi.
If you want it precise, do it yourself to the level of precision you need.
People just don't realize that FPUs are **inherently** approximations, anyone's FPU, its not Intel specific. There are inaccuracies converting to and from binary, there are inaccuracies depending on the relative magnitude of operands, the are inaccuracies due to rounding, etc...
Do you know one way to tell if a calculator app is implemented using the FPU. Try 0.5 - 0.4 - 0.1, you may not get zero if a FPU is used. That is why handheld calculators often implement calculations using decimal math rather than a FPU. The better apps do so as well. This includes an iOS scientific/stats/business/hex calculator app that I wrote. Decimal math for operations, Taylor series based trig calculations, etc.
Which isn't really much of a problem. Many, if not most, Linux users just want Unix functionality and don't care about the Linux brand itself, don't care about the GPL and its politics, etc. Hence the popularity of Mac OS X for many *nix users. It just so happens that for commodity PC hardware Linux is one of the more convenient *nix offerings.
Systems are delivered ready-to-use, and the military personnel are there to follow the book to keep them running
Not even close. Former Marine, and current defense contractor here. DoD systems need constant work, and work-arounds. Finding ways to get things done, despite the systems provided, is part of daily military life.
Here's a practical example. Many people would be surprised at the number of changes being made to the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft that are not coming from degreed engineers but rather from a corporal or sergeant who works on the aircraft. Boeing is routinely sending engineers out to get feedback and suggestions the people who fly and maintain these new and incredibly complicated machines.
And to be honest, this is not really something new. There are similar stories going back to the 50s and probably back to the dawn of military aviation. Its not specific to aviation either. Another famous example is the "teeth" added to tanks during the Normandy campaign of WW2. The tanks were getting stuck in the thick hedgerows, some "hillbilly" suggests putting saw teeth on the tank and some sergeant grabs a welding torch a starts cutting up some angle iron from German anti-tank obstacles and then welding the result onto some tanks. It worked brilliantly.
I don't know about "military IT pros" but if you pick people from combat specialties, and yes some of them know IT, you will find many quite adept at going outside the norm and improvising while lacking the proper equipment and support. One of the favorite IT admins at a previous employer spent time as a door gunner on a blackhawk.
To be honest I'm skeptical about your "military IT pros" appraisal. Are you referring to people working at the Pentagon or something more like people at a Battalion HQ who kept things running on base and who on occasion set things up in the field. I suspect the later would also be quite adept at improvisation and meeting deadlines.
Growing up on the mythology of Apollo (the space program not the god) I was shocked to read the things found in the quite below. But mythology is one thing and history is another.
As a Senator Kennedy did not believe in manned space flight, he thought the money should be spent on social programs. He was more open to less expensive robotic missions.
As President he was still not interested in manned flight. The "new frontier" was actually of little interest to Kennedy. What did get Kennedy behind the Apollo program was, payback to Vice President Johnson for his support and more importantly Cold War politics.
Shockingly, here is NASA's portrayal of Kennedy's motivations:
"Kennedy as president had little direct interest in the U.S. space program. He was not a visionary enraptured with the romantic image of the last American frontier in space and consumed by the adventure of exploring the unknown. He was, on the other hand, a Cold Warrior with a keen sense of Realpolitik in foreign affairs, and worked hard to maintain balance of power and spheres of influence in American/Soviet relations. The Soviet Union's non-military accomplishments in space, therefore, forced Kennedy to respond and to serve notice that the U.S. was every bit as capable in the space arena as the Soviets. Of course, to prove this fact, Kennedy had to be willing to commit national resources to NASA and the civil space program. The Cold War realities of the time, therefore, served as the primary vehicle for an expansion of NASA's activities and for the definition of Project Apollo as the premier civil space effort of the nation. Even more significant, from Kennedy's perspective the Cold War necessitated the expansion of the military space program, especially the development of ICBMs and satellite reconnaissance systems." http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo...
Another interesting and shocking bit of trivia.
"Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth the cost, with the one exception to this a poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969. And consistently throughout the decade 45-60 percent of Americans believed that the government was spending too much onspace, indicative of a lack of commitment to the spaceight agenda." http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...
... Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits...
The funny part being that iPads and the MS Surfaces are rated for Cockpit use. Pilots are now using these all the time because it saves them from having to carry around 30lbs worth of paper charts. It's kind of a big deal if the pilot isn't allowed to double check where he or she is going because the plane might break. Oh, and when I say carry around I mean it. Things like charts are per pilot, not per aircraft.
And why are they rated for cockpit use, because their emissions have been tested and unlike some of the devices that Boeing found they do not exceed limits?
As others have pointed out, Boeing says it is not a theoretical problem...
"Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing)."
"Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency [VHF] omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system [ILS]). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits."
My local Sheriffs Department patrols both urban and rural areas. Patrol vehicles have a shotgun and a rifle. Prior to 9/11 and all the federal subsidies and giveaways of military class gear, the Sheriff chose the Mini-14 over the M-16/M-4/AR-15.
What the range master at the Sheriffs training facility explained to me is that the Mini-14 offers the exact same performance as the semi-auto M16/M-4/AR-15 type rifles at a fraction of the price. Plus it is easier to maintain. That the only advantage of the M-16/M-4/AR-15 was a visually intimidating look by having a "military" silhouette. He said only the SWAT team needed that intimidation factor and that patrol officers were better served by the more compact and simpler Mini-14.
Again, this was in the 1990s, when the Sheriff was spending their own money.
Reproduction. There have been no reports of baby angels. Okay, angels could reproduce secretly or be some kind "worker bees" that don't reproduce.
Organization: Well, we don't have any tissue samples from an angel.
Metabolism: Angels can eat. But do they actually require food, or do they just eat out of courtesy?
Homeostasis: We don't know if angels control their internal environment.
Response to stimuli: Okay, angels do that.
Growth: Angels haven't been observed to age or grow.
Adaptation: Has not been observed.
That is one big long list of "we don't know", hardly evidence against the hypothetical angel being alive. Given that they can communicate, plan, adapt plans to circumstances, experience emotions, etc the scales lean towards alive. Also we are presuming a biblical environment, the scientific definitions are a bit lacking in such an environment. Is divine instantiation on the list under reproduction?:-)
Ask the rank and file believers if they believe that angels exist. If so, they believe that humanity is not the only intelligent form of life.
Angels fail at least one of the criteria necessary for "life", and possibly all of them.
Its already a known fact that what the rank and file believers consider life and what most scientists consider life do not agree.
Don't try moving the goal posts. We are discussing what the rank and file believe, and how well they can incorporate alien life into their belief system.
What "theologians" think has very little to do with what the rank-and-file religious think.
Ask the rank and file believers if they believe that angels exist. If so, they believe that humanity is not the only intelligent form of life. They've made the most difficult step, going from 1 to 2. Going to 3 or more is relatively simple at that point.
...just as an example, the early Christian theologians worked out these questions over 1700 years ago. Not a big deal for the Christian worldview.
I wouldn't limit things to Christianity. The old testament literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example. So other religions that accept the old testament have a precedent of accepting non-human intelligent beings.
Most religious people make a non-binding prediction that there is no life on other planets. Doubly so, but still non-binding, for intelligent life. This is because we are the most important species and planet.
The bible literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example.
You keep saying things as though you are contradicting the guy above you, but you aren't.
The point you are missing is that the GM exec is speaking as if Tesla is *and will remain* a fringe product. It most likely will not remain such, hence the fact that GM is afraid and talking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the key tenants for Agile though is that developers pick the tasks they're going to work on in a sprint.
But some flavors say that developers are supposed to work on all parts of the project. So yes they may be able to pick the individual task but they might not be able to pick a task from an area they prefer.
Exactly this.
And it gets worse for some flavors of agile, for example where any programmer can get assigned to any task any part of the code, etc.
Aside from the implicit assumption that all parts of the code are equivalent and all programmers are interchangeable, which may be true to some degree for the corporate IT projects that some agile books use as their wonderful success stories and basis, this fights human nature. Some people are productive and happy bouncing around different parts of a project, but others are more product and happier when then get to drill down and focus and become expert in one particular area. Its just the way people are wired, some one way, some the other.
A key to good management is to figure out what work styles and methodologies fit each individual programmer so that their productivity (and hopefully happiness) can be high. That's the problem with these "here is the one true universal answer" methodologies, they fight against human nature. Admittedly this may not be a problem with agile in general but it is a problem in some flavors of agile.
No one, outside of some small specialty manufacturers (including some old-time avionics makers), makes analog meters implemented mechanically any more, if you mean something where a cable turns some gears which turn a needle. They're all electrical and digitally-controlled now, and have been for some time, and for good reason: mechanical meters simply aren't as reliable or accurate.
Depends on the domain. Analog gauges are still popular in SCUBA diving. No batteries required. An analog pressure gauge telling you whats in the tank. Another analog pressure gauge telling you your depth.
... but while on a dive boat about half the divers had analog and half had dive computers. Guess which group the programmers and electrical engineers tended to be in and which group the lawyers and accountants tended to be in? :-)
OK, this was a while ago
Great, our communes already smell like a landfill because the greenies make us recycle, and now we all get to smell like they do.
Having once moved from a suburban environment to a ranch environment (horses, cows, etc) I can tell you the odor only bothers you for about three days. After that you still recognized the odors they just no longer have an effect. It seems a persistent ability. Many years after moving back to suburbia I drove near some dairies. While other passengers were nearly gagging I experienced nothing more than the thought "huh, cows".
Most of snapchat's 25 y.o. users don't even know where to buy a postage stamp.
Online at Amazon. Of course the seller, USPS, only gets a 4/5 star rating.
The stack of errata on any current modern CPU is quite large. It is not just math functions...
I'm not talking about errata, about bugs, I'm talking about the inherent lack of precision when using a FPU. Its a design compromise inherent into all FPUs, inherent into IEEE single and double precision.
Linux just works, that's why I use it.
That's my point. Its convenient, it works, its *nix. The fanboi'ism and politics, don't care, its as bad as and embarrassing as the Mac zealots. Most software engineers I've encountered just want a working *nix. Whoever delivers gets their usage. Again, notice the popularity of Mac OS X at *nix conferences.
Back in the 90s when I was using a 486DX2 I brought home two CDs from the local computer swapmeet. FreeBSD and Yggdrasil plug and play Linux. Having grown up on BSD in college I first tried FreeBSD. It crashed during install. I tried Yggdrasil, it installed and configured just fine, that's why I used Linux.
Note, configuration includes **autoconfiguing** graphics, audio, and networking. It truly was plug and play. It was only later when I tried other Linux distributions that I became familiar with the absurdity of having to enter in the monitor timing values to get graphics to work. Other Linux distros were truly far behind Yggdrasil.
Today for desktop tasks where *nix provides the better solution I use Mac OS X's BSD environment. Linux is for the headless servers in the closet and for devices like a raspberry pi.
By politics of the GPL I am referring to things like GPL v BSD. I don't think many *nix users will ever care at that level.
Proprietary vs FOSS, that is something different, that may one day become an issue. But FOSS in general, not the GPL specifically.
If you want it precise, do it yourself to the level of precision you need.
People just don't realize that FPUs are **inherently** approximations, anyone's FPU, its not Intel specific. There are inaccuracies converting to and from binary, there are inaccuracies depending on the relative magnitude of operands, the are inaccuracies due to rounding, etc ...
Do you know one way to tell if a calculator app is implemented using the FPU. Try 0.5 - 0.4 - 0.1, you may not get zero if a FPU is used. That is why handheld calculators often implement calculations using decimal math rather than a FPU. The better apps do so as well. This includes an iOS scientific/stats/business/hex calculator app that I wrote. Decimal math for operations, Taylor series based trig calculations, etc.
Are the FSIN results more or less accurate than the trig tables inside the covers of math textbooks?
FreeBSD is not Linux though.
Which isn't really much of a problem. Many, if not most, Linux users just want Unix functionality and don't care about the Linux brand itself, don't care about the GPL and its politics, etc. Hence the popularity of Mac OS X for many *nix users. It just so happens that for commodity PC hardware Linux is one of the more convenient *nix offerings.
Systems are delivered ready-to-use, and the military personnel are there to follow the book to keep them running
Not even close. Former Marine, and current defense contractor here. DoD systems need constant work, and work-arounds. Finding ways to get things done, despite the systems provided, is part of daily military life.
Here's a practical example. Many people would be surprised at the number of changes being made to the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft that are not coming from degreed engineers but rather from a corporal or sergeant who works on the aircraft. Boeing is routinely sending engineers out to get feedback and suggestions the people who fly and maintain these new and incredibly complicated machines.
And to be honest, this is not really something new. There are similar stories going back to the 50s and probably back to the dawn of military aviation. Its not specific to aviation either. Another famous example is the "teeth" added to tanks during the Normandy campaign of WW2. The tanks were getting stuck in the thick hedgerows, some "hillbilly" suggests putting saw teeth on the tank and some sergeant grabs a welding torch a starts cutting up some angle iron from German anti-tank obstacles and then welding the result onto some tanks. It worked brilliantly.
I don't know about "military IT pros" but if you pick people from combat specialties, and yes some of them know IT, you will find many quite adept at going outside the norm and improvising while lacking the proper equipment and support. One of the favorite IT admins at a previous employer spent time as a door gunner on a blackhawk.
To be honest I'm skeptical about your "military IT pros" appraisal. Are you referring to people working at the Pentagon or something more like people at a Battalion HQ who kept things running on base and who on occasion set things up in the field. I suspect the later would also be quite adept at improvisation and meeting deadlines.
Growing up on the mythology of Apollo (the space program not the god) I was shocked to read the things found in the quite below. But mythology is one thing and history is another.
As a Senator Kennedy did not believe in manned space flight, he thought the money should be spent on social programs. He was more open to less expensive robotic missions.
As President he was still not interested in manned flight. The "new frontier" was actually of little interest to Kennedy. What did get Kennedy behind the Apollo program was, payback to Vice President Johnson for his support and more importantly Cold War politics.
Shockingly, here is NASA's portrayal of Kennedy's motivations:
"Kennedy as president had little direct interest in the U.S. space program. He was not a visionary enraptured with the romantic image of the last American frontier in space and consumed by the adventure of exploring the unknown. He was, on the other hand, a Cold Warrior with a keen sense of Realpolitik in foreign affairs, and worked hard to maintain balance of power and spheres of influence in American/Soviet relations. The Soviet Union's non-military accomplishments in space, therefore, forced Kennedy to respond and to serve notice that the U.S. was every bit as capable in the space arena as the Soviets. Of course, to prove this fact, Kennedy had to be willing to commit national resources to NASA and the civil space program. The Cold War realities of the time, therefore, served as the primary vehicle for an expansion of NASA's activities and for the definition of Project Apollo as the premier civil space effort of the nation. Even more significant, from Kennedy's perspective the Cold War necessitated the expansion of the military space program, especially the development of ICBMs and satellite reconnaissance systems."
http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo...
Another interesting and shocking bit of trivia.
"Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth the cost, with the one exception to this a poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969. And consistently throughout the decade 45-60 percent of Americans believed that the government was spending too much onspace, indicative of a lack of commitment to the spaceight agenda."
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec...
... Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits ...
The funny part being that iPads and the MS Surfaces are rated for Cockpit use. Pilots are now using these all the time because it saves them from having to carry around 30lbs worth of paper charts. It's kind of a big deal if the pilot isn't allowed to double check where he or she is going because the plane might break. Oh, and when I say carry around I mean it. Things like charts are per pilot, not per aircraft.
And why are they rated for cockpit use, because their emissions have been tested and unlike some of the devices that Boeing found they do not exceed limits?
As others have pointed out, Boeing says it is not a theoretical problem ...
"Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing)."
"Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency [VHF] omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system [ILS]). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits."
http://www.boeing.com/commerci...
Wait, slashdot posters are now accepting the idea that personal electronics can affect aircraft electronics ?
My local Sheriffs Department patrols both urban and rural areas. Patrol vehicles have a shotgun and a rifle. Prior to 9/11 and all the federal subsidies and giveaways of military class gear, the Sheriff chose the Mini-14 over the M-16/M-4/AR-15.
What the range master at the Sheriffs training facility explained to me is that the Mini-14 offers the exact same performance as the semi-auto M16/M-4/AR-15 type rifles at a fraction of the price. Plus it is easier to maintain. That the only advantage of the M-16/M-4/AR-15 was a visually intimidating look by having a "military" silhouette. He said only the SWAT team needed that intimidation factor and that patrol officers were better served by the more compact and simpler Mini-14.
Again, this was in the 1990s, when the Sheriff was spending their own money.
Which is?
Let's see:
That is one big long list of "we don't know", hardly evidence against the hypothetical angel being alive. Given that they can communicate, plan, adapt plans to circumstances, experience emotions, etc the scales lean towards alive. Also we are presuming a biblical environment, the scientific definitions are a bit lacking in such an environment. Is divine instantiation on the list under reproduction? :-)
Ask the rank and file believers if they believe that angels exist. If so, they believe that humanity is not the only intelligent form of life.
Angels fail at least one of the criteria necessary for "life", and possibly all of them.
Its already a known fact that what the rank and file believers consider life and what most scientists consider life do not agree.
Don't try moving the goal posts. We are discussing what the rank and file believe, and how well they can incorporate alien life into their belief system.
What "theologians" think has very little to do with what the rank-and-file religious think.
Ask the rank and file believers if they believe that angels exist. If so, they believe that humanity is not the only intelligent form of life. They've made the most difficult step, going from 1 to 2. Going to 3 or more is relatively simple at that point.
...just as an example, the early Christian theologians worked out these questions over 1700 years ago. Not a big deal for the Christian worldview.
I wouldn't limit things to Christianity. The old testament literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example. So other religions that accept the old testament have a precedent of accepting non-human intelligent beings.
Most religious people make a non-binding prediction that there is no life on other planets. Doubly so, but still non-binding, for intelligent life. This is because we are the most important species and planet.
The bible literally refers to non-human intelligent life, angels for example.
The important distinction between Ferrari and Tesla is that Tesla is moving towards the mass market.
You keep saying things as though you are contradicting the guy above you, but you aren't.
The point you are missing is that the GM exec is speaking as if Tesla is *and will remain* a fringe product. It most likely will not remain such, hence the fact that GM is afraid and talking about it.