Romeo and Juliet makes no sense. If the "poison fiasco" would have worked as Juliet intended, she would have ran away with Romeo into the country. However, her own father flat out told her he would disown her if she didn't marry that other guy. Why couldn't she just say, "OK!", not marry that dude, let the disownment happen, and run away with Romeo into the country any goddamn way. Why go this elaborate poison route?
You could argue Juliet was just too young, too dumb, too passionate, not clear-headed, etc. However, none of that excuses Friar Laurence who provided the poison and hatched the whole harebrained scheme in the first place.
Your beloved play does not hold up to cursory scrutiny. Admit it. And stop making kids read it for a grade.
Offloading some of the responsibility to you as a human co-processor is an effective tactic called Share The Pain. It's not stupid, it's genius. You just don't favor the end result. You can always vote with your mouse and go to another website.
Given his definitions of Skill and Talent, Skill can be farmed and scaled. Talent cannot. Talent wins. You cannot make up for a deficiency in Talent with a large outlay of cash alone. With Skill you can.
Then how come back in the CRT monitor days I could see the flicker at 60 Hz and not at 75 Hz? If I'm at 12 Hz, maybe I'm picking it up as 5th harmonic. I doubt I am at 15 Hz picking it up as a 4th harmonic, because then the 75 Hz would hurt MORE as a 5th harmonic.
This is a great money making opportunity for a savvy university. Offer a 2-year Pre-Science curriculum to prepare them for the following 4-year Bachelor of Science. Wouldn't be much different than Pre-Nursing, Pre-Med, Pre-Law, etc. If you happened to come from an awesome school system, then you will have no problem testing out of Pre-Science and go directly to your standard 4-year program.
The summary says: Its "bed" tends towards the land.
Yet you say: the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean
Aren't those contradictory inclines? If it tends toward the land, then wouldn't gravity more likely make it collapse toward the center of the land mass and not towards the ocean?
Heaven forbid a government agency try to do something with efficiency and accuracy. Too many people complain about this because then they would have to stop telling jokes about government being too slow and too dumb.
If it's legal to do the latter, you can't make it illegal to do the former, just because it has more throughput. Heaven forbid government would want to actually do something efficiently and accurately for a change. We'd have to come up with new anti-government jokes!
Worse maladies have befallen ambassadors in embassies as a direct result of state sanctioned interference. I don't think you are being paranoid at all.
It most certainly is. The title implied a device lets me learn with the simplicity of waving. When you read the article, I still couldn't learn say, calculus, by doing something as simple as repeating the same motor function over and over again. The phrase "making learning" sans qualifiers is terribly misleading. It makes you think the notion of learning itself -- not learning a specific skill or subject matter -- is the benefit of the interface. The proper title should be "New Brain-Computer Interface Makes Learning To Use Robotic Limbs As Simple As Thinking About Waving".
Agile includes project/product management (specs), QA (tests), and technical writers (docs) along every step of the way. Only developers code and do estimates, but everywhere else, everyone else, is heavily involved. As stories/tasks are coded, QA and technical writers immediately begin testing/doc'ing those features while developers jump to the next story.
Frequent releases isn't a process; it's the result of a process.
No one said anything to the contrary. Agile merely allows you to have that a goal, but doesn't mandate you actually do. It merely requires you to produce agreed upon customer value at the end of the iteration.
Agile calls its so-called results its process, when in fact it's just throwing shit at a wall and hoping something sticks. It's a businessman's dream, because he can sell an unknown large quantity of billable hours - and by the time the client knows any better, they're Invested and have a hard time justifying backing out.
It's painfully obvious here you don't know what Agile even is. The two biggest constraints it places is Time and Money. You pay me X dollars for Y weeks where I promise agreed upon value. At the end of Y weeks, if you like what you see, we can negotiate another dollar amount for another stretch of time. If you don't like what you see, you're only out X dollars, only wasted Y weeks, and never have to do business with me ever again. Even then, I've hopefully delivered you some value, which is now contractually your property. You are free to hire a different company and see if they can salvage what I gave you, so you're not starting over from scratch.
If your retort is you paid an X in the millions of dollars for a Y number of weeks equaling 3 or more months, then congratulations, you signed a shitty non-Agile contract. You should have done a 2 to 6 week iteration.
"There is a strong disincentive to bring anything new in, when you're finished up. No one wants to skew the metrics."
If Dev is deciding whether new stuff is brought in, you are doing it wrong. That's the stakeholders' decision. It's his money. You spent all that damn time estimating hours so that the stakeholders could clearly see the consequences of making mid-iteration changes. You spent all that time estimating complexity so the stakeholders could clearly see the consequences of swapping stories between iterations within in a release. You've plotted out for them "if you suddenly now want A and B, you can only do so by delaying or scrapping C and D."
If your velocity and burndown chart is skewed infavorably for Dev because of the stakeholders' changes, you can clearly demonstrate that with numbers to back it up. It allows both sides to honestly communicate about what happened so neither feels slighted.
"You don't build things using agile techniques however."
Yes, you do. You specced out a new staircase. I built it for $3,000. After you saw it, you decided you couldn't live with it. We specced out a new staircase. I built that for another $3,000, tearing down and removing the old one for free. You decided you liked the first one better after all. Another $3,000, and everyone and voila.
I will happily rebuild things as many times as you please if you pay me each and every time.
When you find the bug, they are just going to throw you in jail like they do with other vulnerability exposers. Then they'll offer you an out - be employed by them permanently at crap wages to avoid prison time.
Slashdot Mirror
Romeo and Juliet makes no sense. If the "poison fiasco" would have worked as Juliet intended, she would have ran away with Romeo into the country. However, her own father flat out told her he would disown her if she didn't marry that other guy. Why couldn't she just say, "OK!", not marry that dude, let the disownment happen, and run away with Romeo into the country any goddamn way. Why go this elaborate poison route?
You could argue Juliet was just too young, too dumb, too passionate, not clear-headed, etc. However, none of that excuses Friar Laurence who provided the poison and hatched the whole harebrained scheme in the first place.
Your beloved play does not hold up to cursory scrutiny. Admit it. And stop making kids read it for a grade.
Offloading some of the responsibility to you as a human co-processor is an effective tactic called Share The Pain. It's not stupid, it's genius. You just don't favor the end result. You can always vote with your mouse and go to another website.
No, seriously, it's about Time.
Given his definitions of Skill and Talent, Skill can be farmed and scaled. Talent cannot. Talent wins. You cannot make up for a deficiency in Talent with a large outlay of cash alone. With Skill you can.
I had to listen to that 3x to finally get it. Well played, sir!
Sad Day In Slashdot: Headline Is Incompl
Americans unwittingly eat a pound of bugs a year, so the question is moot.
Then how come back in the CRT monitor days I could see the flicker at 60 Hz and not at 75 Hz? If I'm at 12 Hz, maybe I'm picking it up as 5th harmonic. I doubt I am at 15 Hz picking it up as a 4th harmonic, because then the 75 Hz would hurt MORE as a 5th harmonic.
This is a great money making opportunity for a savvy university. Offer a 2-year Pre-Science curriculum to prepare them for the following 4-year Bachelor of Science. Wouldn't be much different than Pre-Nursing, Pre-Med, Pre-Law, etc. If you happened to come from an awesome school system, then you will have no problem testing out of Pre-Science and go directly to your standard 4-year program.
The summary says: Its "bed" tends towards the land.
Yet you say: the land is sloped towards the rest of the ocean
Aren't those contradictory inclines? If it tends toward the land, then wouldn't gravity more likely make it collapse toward the center of the land mass and not towards the ocean?
That is a very obtusely worded summary.
Wish I had mod points to congratulate this relevant shout out to Brazil.
So you have no problem if fraudsters walk in and claim all your packages with no accountability on the post office's end and no recourse on your end?
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away” – Antoine de Saint-Exupery
It doesn't say you are automatically fined. You are automatically flagged for human review.
Heaven forbid a government agency try to do something with efficiency and accuracy. Too many people complain about this because then they would have to stop telling jokes about government being too slow and too dumb.
If it's legal to do the latter, you can't make it illegal to do the former, just because it has more throughput. Heaven forbid government would want to actually do something efficiently and accurately for a change. We'd have to come up with new anti-government jokes!
Worse maladies have befallen ambassadors in embassies as a direct result of state sanctioned interference. I don't think you are being paranoid at all.
It most certainly is. The title implied a device lets me learn with the simplicity of waving. When you read the article, I still couldn't learn say, calculus, by doing something as simple as repeating the same motor function over and over again. The phrase "making learning" sans qualifiers is terribly misleading. It makes you think the notion of learning itself -- not learning a specific skill or subject matter -- is the benefit of the interface. The proper title should be "New Brain-Computer Interface Makes Learning To Use Robotic Limbs As Simple As Thinking About Waving".
Agile includes project/product management (specs), QA (tests), and technical writers (docs) along every step of the way. Only developers code and do estimates, but everywhere else, everyone else, is heavily involved. As stories/tasks are coded, QA and technical writers immediately begin testing/doc'ing those features while developers jump to the next story.
Frequent releases isn't a process; it's the result of a process.
No one said anything to the contrary. Agile merely allows you to have that a goal, but doesn't mandate you actually do. It merely requires you to produce agreed upon customer value at the end of the iteration.
Agile calls its so-called results its process, when in fact it's just throwing shit at a wall and hoping something sticks. It's a businessman's dream, because he can sell an unknown large quantity of billable hours - and by the time the client knows any better, they're Invested and have a hard time justifying backing out.
It's painfully obvious here you don't know what Agile even is. The two biggest constraints it places is Time and Money. You pay me X dollars for Y weeks where I promise agreed upon value. At the end of Y weeks, if you like what you see, we can negotiate another dollar amount for another stretch of time. If you don't like what you see, you're only out X dollars, only wasted Y weeks, and never have to do business with me ever again. Even then, I've hopefully delivered you some value, which is now contractually your property. You are free to hire a different company and see if they can salvage what I gave you, so you're not starting over from scratch.
If your retort is you paid an X in the millions of dollars for a Y number of weeks equaling 3 or more months, then congratulations, you signed a shitty non-Agile contract. You should have done a 2 to 6 week iteration.
"There is a strong disincentive to bring anything new in, when you're finished up. No one wants to skew the metrics."
If Dev is deciding whether new stuff is brought in, you are doing it wrong. That's the stakeholders' decision. It's his money. You spent all that damn time estimating hours so that the stakeholders could clearly see the consequences of making mid-iteration changes. You spent all that time estimating complexity so the stakeholders could clearly see the consequences of swapping stories between iterations within in a release. You've plotted out for them "if you suddenly now want A and B, you can only do so by delaying or scrapping C and D."
If your velocity and burndown chart is skewed infavorably for Dev because of the stakeholders' changes, you can clearly demonstrate that with numbers to back it up. It allows both sides to honestly communicate about what happened so neither feels slighted.
"You don't build things using agile techniques however."
Yes, you do. You specced out a new staircase. I built it for $3,000. After you saw it, you decided you couldn't live with it. We specced out a new staircase. I built that for another $3,000, tearing down and removing the old one for free. You decided you liked the first one better after all. Another $3,000, and everyone and voila.
I will happily rebuild things as many times as you please if you pay me each and every time.
When you find the bug, they are just going to throw you in jail like they do with other vulnerability exposers. Then they'll offer you an out - be employed by them permanently at crap wages to avoid prison time.
I could have sworn I accidentally visited The Onion when I saw the headline.