I've enjoyed reading people's posts. I'm convinced the experts don't know much about weight gain and weight loss. The science that has been done seems full of assumptions and inconclusive studies. The recent tests showing that the Atikins diet actually works while all modern science says it shouldn't shows just how far they have to go in figuring out even the basics.
Here is the key point on the Atkins diet: it may help you lose weight, but it is unhealthy. Too many people associate weight loss with health. Hell, there are lots of unhealthy ways to lose weight. If you want to JUST lose weight, you can do that. If you want to JUST eat healthy, you can do that too (and you'll probably lose some weight). Combining those two goals is the trick.
Another thing I'm convinced of is that there is no one answer to the problem. Different people digest different foods differently. A low carb diet that works well for some people can cause weight gain and even be life threatening to others (gout/kidney issues) while a high carb diet that works well for some people can cause weight gain and even be life threatening to others (diabetic/hypoglycemic.) Adjusting your diet isn't as easy as reading something and following it. You need to pay attention to how your body reacts to different foods.
This is a really good point, and one that a lot of people ignore. But you should try to get healthy first, and lose weight second. Soooo many times they go hand in hand. And a doctor or nutritionest is who can tell you how your body might react best to certain foods. But there are some general rules you can follow first. And you can get that info from somewhere other than Slashdot.
As to your last comment, a lot of thin people like to take credit for their being thin and credit it to being smarter, more disciplined, more moral etc. I know a lot of skinny people and, aside from some girls who seem to have a unhealthy obsession with being thin, I have never known it to be a great feat of will or intellect. Most people I know who are overweight put a lot more intelligence and discipline into healthy living than the thin people I know.
I thought that too, I know people who are overweight, are always watching what they eat, yet don't change. Then I started watching them closer. They cheat, and they deny it to themselves. They don't exercise. Exercise can make such a huge difference. They eat lots of low-fat foods. (hint: low fat != low calories). Portions are a big issue. In my lunch, I'll bring just a few chips, instead of a whole baggie full. If they are there, I'll eat them. If I only have a few, I can space them out. I bring carrots as "filler" food. If I need some chocolate, and sometimes I really do, I'll bring one or two of those Hershey miniatures. Not a king-size Snickers. You add up these little things, and it makes a difference. I know how long I have to go on the stairmaster to burn 100 calories. I keep that in mind when I want to eat a donut, or another helping of something. Sometimes I eat it, and I do it knowing full well what it means.
You don't have to obsess over it, but you have to be honest about it. I have gotten out of shape at times, and put on a little weight. But I know I have to then make a concerted effort to lose it. It is much easier to maintain than it is to yo-yo back and forth.
We went to Paris for a week this year. The only fat people there were tourists, and they stuck out like sore thumbs. It was really disheartening to come back to the US and see how everyone was overweight. Even people I didn't think were overweight seemed so after I got back. We are a fat country. I am 5'11" and weigh 170 lbs, and I felt a little overweight over there. I am by no means skinny, but I will not allow myself to get overweight. When I was younger, I was overweight, and I won't let it happen again. And I eat pretty much anything I want. You have to use balance and smarts about it though. And if you are 100 lbs overweight, you
It's not OK to share Metallica tunes! Have you heard their latest album? It's crap, and it's a waste of valuble bandwidth.
I'll second that. I "bought" the most recent Metallica CD, and one other CD, TaTU. My wife had some gift certificates for Borders, and she gave some to me to spend. I decided since the money was already spent I'd pick up a couple of CDs. The first time I have bought a CD in probably 3 years. Tatu is pretty good, but the Metallica disk blows. Clearly their worst album ever, and I have all their stuff, been a fan since Master of Puppets. I tried to listen to it several times, thinking it would grow on me, but it didn't. (What the hell is up with the pingy drums!? Damn.) I thought about ripping the CD, but it wasn't even worth it for my own use. It came with a DVD and a "special code" that is supposed to allow me to download more music for free over the net. So they are trying to include more "value" in their offerings, good for them. But if their music sucks, I'm not interested. I haven't tried the code or the DVD.
I bet making shitty music is their new plan to stop people from sharing it. They should should send this idea over to the patent department, I'm sure it would go right through.
Besides which, after a while you start getting diminishing returns when hiring lawyers; once you have a large legal team working fulltime on a case, throwing money at them doesn't do anything.
Except make the lawyers chuckle, and mutter "Suckers" under their breath.
Why on earth would you want a quick fix for your health? Do you code like that?
If you are sitting your ass in front of a computer all day, they have this thing called Google. Use it. Find out about nutrition, about the *basics* of exercise and diet. Go from there.
I'll assume that you are reasonably intelligent since you are in the tech field, so I won't talk down to you. You should be able to figure out all this stuff on your own by researching on the net. You don't need to "ask slashdot".
I used to work with a fatass who was always after the quick-fix. He was basically forced to do something because of doctor's orders. He was telling me about how he was going to buckle down and watch what he ate, how he was going to quit smoking and get healthy. WHILE he was telling me all this, he was buying a bag of chips out of the vending machine - at 10:00 AM. He tried a couple of crazy diets, even one he thought up himself (1 big meal a day and at least 2 gallons of water during the day). I thought he was reasonably smart until he told me that one. Within a month he was smoking and eating McDonalds every day again. His claim? None of it worked. Of course, he wasn't doing anything resembling exercise and was looking for that quick answer to solve all his problems. A simple diet change and simple exercise would have done wonders for him if he would have cared at all. But he didn't. I don't consider looking for a magic pill to be "caring".
It isn't just a geek problem, because there are all kinds of completely unhealthy people. But when you are an out of shape geek, you fit into that stereotype. For "smart" people, some sure don't show it.
I had an ex-coworker ask me a similar question recently, becaues he knows I am pro-Linux. I didn't really know the answer. I looked around at some distro FAQs, and couldn't find anything. He was working with a company who had written some an API for an SSL/IPsec offload chip that was getting included in major motherboards. They needed to figure out how to get it included into the Linux distros, and were currently working to get it into *BSD. Now that isn't something that the normal user would use, so saying "gain popular support" didn't really apply. I guess every distro would have a different way of handling submissions, and it would just be legwork to contact each one.
Since there is no representative for *nix, to go to mobo manufacturers and distros to work out the details, I guess it makes it a little tougher. I suppose a company that had created the API might have an easier time than some guy in his basement, but it still seems like getting code submitted to distros could be a little easier. Do the distro guys scan freshmeat every day? Do they just rely on word of mouth to get new packages?
I wonder if they knew who they were going to bed with when they bought a license from SCO to keep them afloat. As much as I despise Microsoft, I can't believe this would do them any good, except in the short term FUD department. If SCO can claim ownership of Linux, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to own every other OS which ever borrowed from Unix ideas.
Wouldn't do MS any good? If it went that far, who do you think would purchase SCO?
Do I think it will go that far? No. Would it surprise me if it did? Unfortunately, no. IP laws are just that stupid. I think SCO execs are looking for a way out, and MS could very well be their "daddy" on this whole thing.
So are we referring to the software testing side of QA? You see, depending on the size and maturity of your organization, and if you have some kind of maturity rating (ISO, CMM, etc), QA can be very different things.
QA (for those who don't know) stands for Quality Assurance. For many small companies, that means testing. Is bigger companies, it means lots of different testing, such as installation, integration, subsystem, system, performance, load, stress, regression, automated, etc. When you get to those companies with the CMM rating (and possibly ISO, I am not sure) QA is not about testing, that is for the test group. QA is about making sure that processes are followed, metrics are collected, entry and exit criteria are met between phases, etc.
For the last 10 years I have been in different companies that had these different ideas of what QA is all about. From the article, I will assume that it is referring to testing, because it talks about OSS. I actually asked an "ask Slashdot" question similar to what this article addresses last year. It got rejected. I am guessing that the OSS community knows little about real Quality Assurance. It relies mainly on the expertise of the developer, their stake in the software, and the "many eyes" of the end users. It seems to work OK for some projects, but not for all.
I am currently working for a company that does software for hospitals. I can now better understand why the OSS model does not fit every software solution. One of the things we do in QA/Testing here is verify the requirements. For all of you OSS people with cocked heads and puzzled looks on your faces, requirements are what you get from your customer that define what they want/need the software to do. Requirements analysts go over them, refine them, create more of them. A whole team of people inspect them, then we create test cases for them while development designs the system around them. When we get the code, we test it against the requirements. In theory, if everything is good, then it meets the customer expectations. Oh, unless they have changed their minds, or a different customer has a different idea of how it should work. (not what it should do, but HOW it should do it)
OK, [/rant].
I think that software QA will be around for a while, because proprietary software will be around for a while. As it should be. I don't think it is OSS or nothing. At least I hope not, I make my living doing QA. And QA isn't just for the rejects of the software development pool, I have a BS-CS, and have chosen to do this field. If your management looks at QA as non-important and puts new developers there just to get them "up to speed", then you have a whole different set of problems.
Seriously, my MP3 collection is about 15 GB, and that is just the stuff I have taken the time to rip. My CD collection would easily be 10 times that, if I ever get around to digitizing them.
Granted, putting 15 GB on DVDs would be time consuming, but compared to CDRs, it is phenominal. I am kind of holding out for the blue lasers though.
What could you use a DVD+-R for? How about imaging your system for instant restores? Hard to do with CDRs. Disk drives are getting bigger, and we are finding ways to fill them.
"and I can trace it to the RIAA"
Ah - but you can't because of the DMCA. In fact, they will sue you first for hacking into their network.
Not if they give ultimate power to the copyright holder. They intend to give it only to themselves, because they feel they are the only ones who can hold copyright to music. They are wrong. If they get their way, I, as a copyright holder, can do whatever it takes to protect my rights. (and the DMCA doesn't really play into this scenario at all)
I want them to pass this bill into law. The core assumption here is that sharing copyrighted files is illegal. It is not.
Go ahead, get your panties in a bunch.
Now, let me explain: If I write and perform an original song, it is copyrighted. I can encode that song into the MP3 format and upload it to a P2P network. I, as the copyright holder, can say "go ahead and make as many copies of this file as you want". That is not illegal. They want to put more and more power in the hands of the copyright holders - fine. We can all be copyright holders.
So go ahead - put extreme power in the hands of the copyright holders. If I can set up a system that tracks my copyrighted material, and I can trace it to the RIAA, you can bet that I'll be able to retire after that lawsuit is over. I am sure I wouldn't be the only one who would do the same.
Somebody needs to shake these motherfuckers at the RIAA/MPAA and tell them they are not the sole holders of copyright in this country.
you don't speak for me you dope - go get a real job.
WOW! I don't know why you posted this as an AC, you should really take credit for something this hilarious and relevant. I guess we'll never know who the genius is behind such insightful commentary.
How about free, low quality MP3s? Encode them under 128k, and make them available for free. The higher quality ones, or even the wav files, will cost something minimal. Quicker download for the smaller files, and people like free.
Something else that isn't an online sales tactic, is to make audio CDs, and sell them at various locations (festivals, concerts, bars, whatever is around you) Sell them for $3, and have the music playing so people can hear it. I would rather pay $3 for something I can have now than pay 0.99 for the same thing that takes an hour to download. Sometimes time is worth money, and if it is in front of me I don't have to go out and find it online.
Will indie record stores, or bookstores take a gratis copy and play it in the store? Dunno.
I really hate the fact that an organization doesn't have to use the processes for very long before it can get its CMM rating. To me, throwing some processes together and then using them for 2-3 weeks doesn't constitute a "mature organization."
We are actually the opposite. We are a very mature organization (15+ years old), we just don't have everything that we do documented. Believe me, that is almost as hard as starting from scratch, because everyone believes they do the same process, but they don't.
And to your point, that may be true for level 2, but the higher you go, the more you have to really institutionalize these processes.
Of course, some organizations really don't care about the benefit and, as you say, just pretty much stop doing the things that got them their rating in the first place.
Arrrgh. That is what pisses me off. I would rather that people not care about the rating, but want to follow good procedures. Instead, they want to get the rating, but don't care about following sound development procedures.
Getting the rating is another sort of scam and don't even get me started there.
Level 2, maybe. Level 3, probably not. Anything above Level 3, and it is tough to scam. You have to have some solid historical data to back up a level 4 rating. Not only that, but you can be knocked down a level. I was in a place that went to Level 2, then Level 3, then when we tried for Level 4 we slipped back down to 2. But once you get a rating, there is nothing that says you have to go up, or be re-evaluated. It's just like anything else, you can scam the system, but only for so long.
I look at processes like computer security - you start out being a hard-ass and put strict enforcement in place, and let things slip a little when they need to. You can't really institute processes a little at a time and expect them to stick.
I have worked in a CMM level 3 organization for a couple of years. I understand its benefits. One of them is not "good code."
You mean in this case, it wasn't good code. You can't blame CMM for that. So you had a well-managed bunch of coders who were no good. Yeah, that happens.
Totally disagree. That's like saying "project management is project management." Bad coders can write well-estimated, properly documented code that is a b*tch to maintain because it was written poorly.
I still say "code is code". Of course, that is in the context that you shouldn't just take the CMM rating at face value - you should also look at the quality of the product. But you can't rely on good coders to save the project either.
I agree. What's ironic is that as an organization matures it tends to get smaller, lighter processes instead of the monstrosities that tend to be in place at the beginning.
Heh. I am involved in documenting some of our "processes" for our CMM evaluation. I have only been there 2.5 years, and some people have been there 10 or more. It is funny that you say the processes get smaller and lighter. That is what we refer to as "tribal knowledge". You think it is working great, because everyone understands what goes on. But as soon as a reorg happens, or new people join, the flaws stick out like a sore thumb. The reason they are "smaller and ligther" is because they become less and less existent. It's a real bitch to get any info out of people when you join a project like that. It took me two days to find a document this week because the people who knew where it was weren't there, and it wasn't documented anywhere. Well, I did have the name of the document, but that was it.
Achieving a CMM level != understanding
And good coding != a good product.
I think we are kind of agreeing - you can't have just one or the other. But you combine the two, and you have a pretty solid combination. THAT is what is happening with these overseas contractors. They have the leg up on the maturity of the way they do business. Like I said, if the code is essentially the same, the company with the CMM rating will win. (of course, there are companies that get that rating and let their process go to hell, because there is nothing that requires that you do anything to maintain that rating)
I think it also means more if you need that rating for your business, like to use it to impress your customers, or if you are a contracting house. It carries weight then. Over lunch, one of the guys in the class pondered what Microsoft's CMM rating would be, or if they ever were evaluated. I said "Microsoft doesn't need a CMM rating, they aren't accountable to anyone." Why would MS even consider this? It pretty much applies to any commercial product that relies more on marketing and sales. Think any consumer would care if the maker of the software they want to buy is CMM level 4? Hell no.
The most insulting part of the slideshow was the assumption that a high CMM level for an organization meant good code was being written.
All the CMM level means is that things are being done in a defined manner. Crappy code can be written in a defined, repeatable manner.
Having just sat through a 3 day class for CMM, the concepts are fresh in my mind. We are trying to get to level 2 where I work. One of the key points is that CMM is a *management* model, not an engineering model. The instructor made it clear that the CMM doesn't ensure good code, but it indicates good process. If you are a good strong CMM level 3 organization, you'll be able to accurately tell the customer how long it will take to deliver release X. This is especially helpful for contractors, and that makes sense since the CMM was developed mainly for government contractors.
You are right, a CMM rated organization isn't guaranteed to put out a good product, but neither is a non-CMM rated organization. And there is much more to a product than solid code. You can be insulted all you want, but until you realize that there is more to it than just solid code, you lose. A highly-rated CMM level company will have credibility with their customers. Again, it isn't all about who writes the best code. For the most part, code is code. How well can you estimate? How good is your scheduling? How good is your documentation? And probably most importantly, how well do you handle the unexpected pressures of schedule crunch? Mature organizations that follow a solid process will be able to handle pressure consistently better.
Want to contract to two different places, one is CMM rated, the other isn't. Which one do you think will get the contract, all else being equal? I liken the software contracting market to the car market in the US in the 70's. You have to improve to stay competitive.
Anyway, there is a lot of frustration out there and the Mozilla people really need to get the word out that they have a competitive product. Place some ads in the weekly magazines, some big newspapers, and get a buzz going.
Mozilla needs to start advertising - in popup ads. What better way to get your message across? "Hate pop-up ads like this one? Do you know there is a browser out there that allows you to block pop-up ads? It is called Mozilla, and we have a lot of other great features too. Mozilla is absolutely free! Try it out today. [url to mozilla.org]"
Yeah, it is a little like spammers sending you an email on how to stop spam, but I like the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the key point on the Atkins diet: it may help you lose weight, but it is unhealthy. Too many people associate weight loss with health. Hell, there are lots of unhealthy ways to lose weight. If you want to JUST lose weight, you can do that. If you want to JUST eat healthy, you can do that too (and you'll probably lose some weight). Combining those two goals is the trick.
Another thing I'm convinced of is that there is no one answer to the problem. Different people digest different foods differently. A low carb diet that works well for some people can cause weight gain and even be life threatening to others (gout/kidney issues) while a high carb diet that works well for some people can cause weight gain and even be life threatening to others (diabetic/hypoglycemic.) Adjusting your diet isn't as easy as reading something and following it. You need to pay attention to how your body reacts to different foods.
This is a really good point, and one that a lot of people ignore. But you should try to get healthy first, and lose weight second. Soooo many times they go hand in hand. And a doctor or nutritionest is who can tell you how your body might react best to certain foods. But there are some general rules you can follow first. And you can get that info from somewhere other than Slashdot.
As to your last comment, a lot of thin people like to take credit for their being thin and credit it to being smarter, more disciplined, more moral etc. I know a lot of skinny people and, aside from some girls who seem to have a unhealthy obsession with being thin, I have never known it to be a great feat of will or intellect. Most people I know who are overweight put a lot more intelligence and discipline into healthy living than the thin people I know.
I thought that too, I know people who are overweight, are always watching what they eat, yet don't change. Then I started watching them closer. They cheat, and they deny it to themselves. They don't exercise. Exercise can make such a huge difference. They eat lots of low-fat foods. (hint: low fat != low calories). Portions are a big issue. In my lunch, I'll bring just a few chips, instead of a whole baggie full. If they are there, I'll eat them. If I only have a few, I can space them out. I bring carrots as "filler" food. If I need some chocolate, and sometimes I really do, I'll bring one or two of those Hershey miniatures. Not a king-size Snickers. You add up these little things, and it makes a difference. I know how long I have to go on the stairmaster to burn 100 calories. I keep that in mind when I want to eat a donut, or another helping of something. Sometimes I eat it, and I do it knowing full well what it means.
You don't have to obsess over it, but you have to be honest about it. I have gotten out of shape at times, and put on a little weight. But I know I have to then make a concerted effort to lose it. It is much easier to maintain than it is to yo-yo back and forth.
We went to Paris for a week this year. The only fat people there were tourists, and they stuck out like sore thumbs. It was really disheartening to come back to the US and see how everyone was overweight. Even people I didn't think were overweight seemed so after I got back. We are a fat country. I am 5'11" and weigh 170 lbs, and I felt a little overweight over there. I am by no means skinny, but I will not allow myself to get overweight. When I was younger, I was overweight, and I won't let it happen again. And I eat pretty much anything I want. You have to use balance and smarts about it though. And if you are 100 lbs overweight, you
I'll second that. I "bought" the most recent Metallica CD, and one other CD, TaTU. My wife had some gift certificates for Borders, and she gave some to me to spend. I decided since the money was already spent I'd pick up a couple of CDs. The first time I have bought a CD in probably 3 years. Tatu is pretty good, but the Metallica disk blows. Clearly their worst album ever, and I have all their stuff, been a fan since Master of Puppets. I tried to listen to it several times, thinking it would grow on me, but it didn't. (What the hell is up with the pingy drums!? Damn.) I thought about ripping the CD, but it wasn't even worth it for my own use. It came with a DVD and a "special code" that is supposed to allow me to download more music for free over the net. So they are trying to include more "value" in their offerings, good for them. But if their music sucks, I'm not interested. I haven't tried the code or the DVD.
I bet making shitty music is their new plan to stop people from sharing it. They should should send this idea over to the patent department, I'm sure it would go right through.
Nope. Too much prior art.
Except make the lawyers chuckle, and mutter "Suckers" under their breath.
If you are sitting your ass in front of a computer all day, they have this thing called Google. Use it. Find out about nutrition, about the *basics* of exercise and diet. Go from there.
I'll assume that you are reasonably intelligent since you are in the tech field, so I won't talk down to you. You should be able to figure out all this stuff on your own by researching on the net. You don't need to "ask slashdot".
I used to work with a fatass who was always after the quick-fix. He was basically forced to do something because of doctor's orders. He was telling me about how he was going to buckle down and watch what he ate, how he was going to quit smoking and get healthy. WHILE he was telling me all this, he was buying a bag of chips out of the vending machine - at 10:00 AM. He tried a couple of crazy diets, even one he thought up himself (1 big meal a day and at least 2 gallons of water during the day). I thought he was reasonably smart until he told me that one. Within a month he was smoking and eating McDonalds every day again. His claim? None of it worked. Of course, he wasn't doing anything resembling exercise and was looking for that quick answer to solve all his problems. A simple diet change and simple exercise would have done wonders for him if he would have cared at all. But he didn't. I don't consider looking for a magic pill to be "caring".
It isn't just a geek problem, because there are all kinds of completely unhealthy people. But when you are an out of shape geek, you fit into that stereotype. For "smart" people, some sure don't show it.
Simply removing a comma and a word gives more advice too...
Eat less shit
Hmm, not sure about the "running out by 2000" part, because the original article is long gone, but here is a Slashdot story from May 12, 1999.
Wood.
Must.... suppress.... Beavis... and
Immature as hell, but those guys still crack me up.
I had an ex-coworker ask me a similar question recently, becaues he knows I am pro-Linux. I didn't really know the answer. I looked around at some distro FAQs, and couldn't find anything. He was working with a company who had written some an API for an SSL/IPsec offload chip that was getting included in major motherboards. They needed to figure out how to get it included into the Linux distros, and were currently working to get it into *BSD. Now that isn't something that the normal user would use, so saying "gain popular support" didn't really apply. I guess every distro would have a different way of handling submissions, and it would just be legwork to contact each one.
Since there is no representative for *nix, to go to mobo manufacturers and distros to work out the details, I guess it makes it a little tougher. I suppose a company that had created the API might have an easier time than some guy in his basement, but it still seems like getting code submitted to distros could be a little easier. Do the distro guys scan freshmeat every day? Do they just rely on word of mouth to get new packages?
Wouldn't do MS any good? If it went that far, who do you think would purchase SCO?
Do I think it will go that far? No. Would it surprise me if it did? Unfortunately, no. IP laws are just that stupid. I think SCO execs are looking for a way out, and MS could very well be their "daddy" on this whole thing.
QA (for those who don't know) stands for Quality Assurance. For many small companies, that means testing. Is bigger companies, it means lots of different testing, such as installation, integration, subsystem, system, performance, load, stress, regression, automated, etc. When you get to those companies with the CMM rating (and possibly ISO, I am not sure) QA is not about testing, that is for the test group. QA is about making sure that processes are followed, metrics are collected, entry and exit criteria are met between phases, etc.
For the last 10 years I have been in different companies that had these different ideas of what QA is all about. From the article, I will assume that it is referring to testing, because it talks about OSS. I actually asked an "ask Slashdot" question similar to what this article addresses last year. It got rejected. I am guessing that the OSS community knows little about real Quality Assurance. It relies mainly on the expertise of the developer, their stake in the software, and the "many eyes" of the end users. It seems to work OK for some projects, but not for all.
I am currently working for a company that does software for hospitals. I can now better understand why the OSS model does not fit every software solution. One of the things we do in QA/Testing here is verify the requirements. For all of you OSS people with cocked heads and puzzled looks on your faces, requirements are what you get from your customer that define what they want/need the software to do. Requirements analysts go over them, refine them, create more of them. A whole team of people inspect them, then we create test cases for them while development designs the system around them. When we get the code, we test it against the requirements. In theory, if everything is good, then it meets the customer expectations. Oh, unless they have changed their minds, or a different customer has a different idea of how it should work. (not what it should do, but HOW it should do it)
OK, [/rant].
I think that software QA will be around for a while, because proprietary software will be around for a while. As it should be. I don't think it is OSS or nothing. At least I hope not, I make my living doing QA. And QA isn't just for the rejects of the software development pool, I have a BS-CS, and have chosen to do this field. If your management looks at QA as non-important and puts new developers there just to get them "up to speed", then you have a whole different set of problems.
Hey, why don't you ask Microsoft? It is their frigging product.
Seriously, my MP3 collection is about 15 GB, and that is just the stuff I have taken the time to rip. My CD collection would easily be 10 times that, if I ever get around to digitizing them.
Granted, putting 15 GB on DVDs would be time consuming, but compared to CDRs, it is phenominal. I am kind of holding out for the blue lasers though.
What could you use a DVD+-R for? How about imaging your system for instant restores? Hard to do with CDRs. Disk drives are getting bigger, and we are finding ways to fill them.
Ah - but you can't because of the DMCA. In fact, they will sue you first for hacking into their network.
Not if they give ultimate power to the copyright holder. They intend to give it only to themselves, because they feel they are the only ones who can hold copyright to music. They are wrong. If they get their way, I, as a copyright holder, can do whatever it takes to protect my rights. (and the DMCA doesn't really play into this scenario at all)
Go ahead, get your panties in a bunch.
Now, let me explain:
If I write and perform an original song, it is copyrighted. I can encode that song into the MP3 format and upload it to a P2P network. I, as the copyright holder, can say "go ahead and make as many copies of this file as you want". That is not illegal. They want to put more and more power in the hands of the copyright holders - fine. We can all be copyright holders. So go ahead - put extreme power in the hands of the copyright holders. If I can set up a system that tracks my copyrighted material, and I can trace it to the RIAA, you can bet that I'll be able to retire after that lawsuit is over. I am sure I wouldn't be the only one who would do the same.
Somebody needs to shake these motherfuckers at the RIAA/MPAA and tell them they are not the sole holders of copyright in this country.
To drive that point home a little more: theft of copyrighted material would be stealing a CD out of a store - a misdemeaner.
WOW! I don't know why you posted this as an AC, you should really take credit for something this hilarious and relevant. I guess we'll never know who the genius is behind such insightful commentary.
Thank you, I'll be here until I get booed off stage.
I think I speak for everyone when I say :
Booooooooooooooo!
Did you read what I wrote? There was no competition for Linux on the issue of freedom. Get it?
Something else that isn't an online sales tactic, is to make audio CDs, and sell them at various locations (festivals, concerts, bars, whatever is around you) Sell them for $3, and have the music playing so people can hear it. I would rather pay $3 for something I can have now than pay 0.99 for the same thing that takes an hour to download. Sometimes time is worth money, and if it is in front of me I don't have to go out and find it online.
Will indie record stores, or bookstores take a gratis copy and play it in the store? Dunno.
Why, Hacker-Pschorr, of course.
We are actually the opposite. We are a very mature organization (15+ years old), we just don't have everything that we do documented. Believe me, that is almost as hard as starting from scratch, because everyone believes they do the same process, but they don't.
And to your point, that may be true for level 2, but the higher you go, the more you have to really institutionalize these processes.
Of course, some organizations really don't care about the benefit and, as you say, just pretty much stop doing the things that got them their rating in the first place.
Arrrgh. That is what pisses me off. I would rather that people not care about the rating, but want to follow good procedures. Instead, they want to get the rating, but don't care about following sound development procedures.
Getting the rating is another sort of scam and don't even get me started there.
Level 2, maybe. Level 3, probably not. Anything above Level 3, and it is tough to scam. You have to have some solid historical data to back up a level 4 rating. Not only that, but you can be knocked down a level. I was in a place that went to Level 2, then Level 3, then when we tried for Level 4 we slipped back down to 2. But once you get a rating, there is nothing that says you have to go up, or be re-evaluated. It's just like anything else, you can scam the system, but only for so long.
I look at processes like computer security - you start out being a hard-ass and put strict enforcement in place, and let things slip a little when they need to. You can't really institute processes a little at a time and expect them to stick.
Incorrect. There was no competition on that point.
You mean in this case, it wasn't good code. You can't blame CMM for that. So you had a well-managed bunch of coders who were no good. Yeah, that happens.
Totally disagree. That's like saying "project management is project management." Bad coders can write well-estimated, properly documented code that is a b*tch to maintain because it was written poorly.
I still say "code is code". Of course, that is in the context that you shouldn't just take the CMM rating at face value - you should also look at the quality of the product. But you can't rely on good coders to save the project either.
I agree. What's ironic is that as an organization matures it tends to get smaller, lighter processes instead of the monstrosities that tend to be in place at the beginning.
Heh. I am involved in documenting some of our "processes" for our CMM evaluation. I have only been there 2.5 years, and some people have been there 10 or more. It is funny that you say the processes get smaller and lighter. That is what we refer to as "tribal knowledge". You think it is working great, because everyone understands what goes on. But as soon as a reorg happens, or new people join, the flaws stick out like a sore thumb. The reason they are "smaller and ligther" is because they become less and less existent. It's a real bitch to get any info out of people when you join a project like that. It took me two days to find a document this week because the people who knew where it was weren't there, and it wasn't documented anywhere. Well, I did have the name of the document, but that was it.
Achieving a CMM level != understanding
And good coding != a good product.
I think we are kind of agreeing - you can't have just one or the other. But you combine the two, and you have a pretty solid combination. THAT is what is happening with these overseas contractors. They have the leg up on the maturity of the way they do business. Like I said, if the code is essentially the same, the company with the CMM rating will win. (of course, there are companies that get that rating and let their process go to hell, because there is nothing that requires that you do anything to maintain that rating)
I think it also means more if you need that rating for your business, like to use it to impress your customers, or if you are a contracting house. It carries weight then. Over lunch, one of the guys in the class pondered what Microsoft's CMM rating would be, or if they ever were evaluated. I said "Microsoft doesn't need a CMM rating, they aren't accountable to anyone." Why would MS even consider this? It pretty much applies to any commercial product that relies more on marketing and sales. Think any consumer would care if the maker of the software they want to buy is CMM level 4? Hell no.
Having just sat through a 3 day class for CMM, the concepts are fresh in my mind. We are trying to get to level 2 where I work. One of the key points is that CMM is a *management* model, not an engineering model. The instructor made it clear that the CMM doesn't ensure good code, but it indicates good process. If you are a good strong CMM level 3 organization, you'll be able to accurately tell the customer how long it will take to deliver release X. This is especially helpful for contractors, and that makes sense since the CMM was developed mainly for government contractors.
You are right, a CMM rated organization isn't guaranteed to put out a good product, but neither is a non-CMM rated organization. And there is much more to a product than solid code. You can be insulted all you want, but until you realize that there is more to it than just solid code, you lose. A highly-rated CMM level company will have credibility with their customers. Again, it isn't all about who writes the best code. For the most part, code is code. How well can you estimate? How good is your scheduling? How good is your documentation? And probably most importantly, how well do you handle the unexpected pressures of schedule crunch? Mature organizations that follow a solid process will be able to handle pressure consistently better.
Want to contract to two different places, one is CMM rated, the other isn't. Which one do you think will get the contract, all else being equal? I liken the software contracting market to the car market in the US in the 70's. You have to improve to stay competitive.
Mozilla needs to start advertising - in popup ads. What better way to get your message across? "Hate pop-up ads like this one? Do you know there is a browser out there that allows you to block pop-up ads? It is called Mozilla, and we have a lot of other great features too. Mozilla is absolutely free! Try it out today. [url to mozilla.org]"
Yeah, it is a little like spammers sending you an email on how to stop spam, but I like the idea.