Yeah, that was a pretty reasonable answer. If I could boil it down to one sentence I would say it would be: Popularity of a theory makes it worth covering.
This leads to a few refinements: Who finds it popular (concensus of experts vs concensus of news watchers)? ; If you can find no factual supporting evidence, but it is popular, then should it still be covered (if the stork theory of child birth was popular, but no one could find any storks do you still need to cover it)?
I think critical and/or unpopular reporting is reasonable if the reporter is unable to find anything reasonable supporting popular opinion. I think my two refinements above support that this is reasonable at times. Perhaps, they still need to state they could find nothing credible (I can imagine that going over well - No STORKS! That guy is some crazy egg-head that does not understand child birth).
"You there, peasant! I have been exposed to the opinions of the contrarians, and yet I disagree with them! But because you are not as smart and wise and 'insighful' as I am, you must not be allowed to do this thing that I have done, for you may be misled where I was not. Therefore, for your own good, I will define for you the parameters of legitimate discourse, for I fear that your lack of intelligence will prevent you from coming to the 'correct' conclusion, as defined by me."
Clearly the counter argument to this is how many sides do you have to show before you are no longer being elitist? There is rarely only two views to any subject. Logically, you have a point; but from a practical standpoint it seems unrealistic.
Whether you are doing a book review or are a news reporter, you have to use some judgement and common sense. It may not satisfy everyone, but covering all angles generally will not work. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere...People will stop watching if you sound more like "In Search Of..." instead of the news.
One historical correction (at least I think it is) is that surgical team is not much like paired programming.
It has been years since I read the book, but I think the idea behind the surgical team was to have a master surgeon who would straighten stuff out to make things consistent and cohesive. So he performs reviews (design/code). A more reactive approach as people do work before showing it to the master surgeon. I do not remember any other multiple-developer interaction besides this.
Paired programming, on the other hand, seems more proactive. It allows the work to be reviewed "real-time". I am not a huge fan of paired programming, but I do think it creates better designs (it is not as helpful in improving implementation -- unit tests is the solution to improving implementation).
Also as an aside Beck, Cunningham, and co. were not the first people to do paired programming. There is some older ACM article that did it (first thing I read on it) before them. I am sure that author was not the first to do it either...
PS - I am not an XP guy (though it offers plenty of food for thought). PPS - Notice how many times the reviewer used 'Zealot' in the review....was he reviewing the book or the XP community?
Microsofts patience and tenacity is an asset for them. However, they have been shown to abandon projects over the years (MS Bob anyone?). So it is worth noting that they do not always stick with it. Also sticking with a losing dog cannot always be a wise move (I think they realize this generally).
From an OSS perspective, 20 different "Gnifty" apps may show up, but as long as at least one succeeds; then all is well for OSS. I don't really consider this idea that many will fail as any different than from the closed source world. Many companies have put out word processors...Where are they? Is that a blemish on closed-source software as a model?
Also OSS does not have to win every battle to win the war (if we want to use such an analogy). In fact, losing a battle seems to have no effect on OSS at all. They just keep coming...
Half the the replies are along the lines: "Geez, some dumbass will be my partner and drag me down like an anchor. Without them I can write my godlike code in peace..."
I doubt there are many people in the world that can really make this sort of claim and be justified. Certainly not half the peanut gallery known as slashdot. We all just like to think we are that good, because we can always see people who seem alot worse.
Paired programming will create higher quality designs/code and think thats what software developers should be focusing on.
"That's a lie. If you consider ALL taxes (federal, state, and local) the highest 20% pays between 50%-60%. Tell me how this is fair?"
Unless you are Ronald Reagan who bragged about paying only one dollar a year in taxes for years (he probably still does). Maybe only bedtime for bonzos is smart enough to not pay taxes....
The worst thing about XML is that there is no consistent data/object scheme
I am not sure I understand this argument...The fact that you have a choice as to whether something is an attribute or a tag makes the language inconsistent? Is this any different than any OO language where programmers have a choice to store attributes as a primitive or promote them to a first class citizen by making it a class?
I suspect, design patterns (like Gang of Four) exist that allow people to properly structure the schema of their data for the task at hand. I will look at your other data interchange formats to try and understand your point better (KIF,...).
Nothing against XML, one just has to ask, what does it really buy me ?
The example that I always see is the mythical unix system where all of the/etc files were XML. Now whenever I had to edit the file I could see if I made a syntax error before kill HUP'ing. As a hacker, I could go from app to app and see the same API for manipulating the config file. As a fresh project developer I could get this free (as in time to develop) parser to use. As a third party vendor (or another free project), I could write some fancy GUI configuration tool without having to port parsing routines.
I do not think XML is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do see alot of work eliminated by having such a standard.
Also, I think XML can be much simpler to read than ad hoc formats in many cases (especially when I first encounter the new format). In some cases XML is not as clear (typically because it is not as concise). Very few things are the best at everything though.
If you factor in the fact that industrial farming only uses a few strains of popular produce (corn, potatos, etc...) and also depend heavily on herbicides. It only takes one super-wilt or super-locust to create mass starvation. Over-population and distribution will magnify the problem too.
Some of your articles require too much work to decode. You make lots of points that seem to come together to make a larger point, but it is layed out in some stream of consciousness way. In articles like this, I struggle to understand your message (in fact in this one, I just stopped reading after awhile).
I suggest you start creating an outline before you write your feature. Also, structure your features with actual paragraphs (as opposed to one or two sentences thoughts)....I should probably not be giving specifics so much, considering I am not an author and not a very good writer.
I do think the general topics you talk about are very interesting, but I think your current literary style is a turn-off.
I thought that it was a play off a Jamacian stereotype before I had heard it online. I think the sound of Jar Jar's accent and the Kettle drums at the end (carribean music -- come on?) made me think that.
I like his if anyone thought that it was racist then they are reflecting their own racism argument. Whooie. I am not sure I found it rascist so much as unimaginative anyways.
I agree that Star Wars is a childrens movie, but saying that the Ewoks and Jar Jar are not too annoying is like saying Microsoft uses fair licensing practices. I am sure all children above the age of 7 agree. Perhaps in the next movie he can have Barney make a cameo? Maybe even have the Teletubbies show up as Jedi Knights...
Slurping away on Darth Maul Taco Bell commemorative glass,
This has to be one of the most cheezy advertising gimmicks on the net right now. I mean come on who didn't laugh when their logo popped up. I mean James Dean looks like he is strutting off of a J. Crew catalog (or perhaps some Gap commercial). Hardly what anyone conjures up as a rebel these days.
Also, talking about rebels, how many IT people want to buy a rebelous solution? HEH.
In the US (probably elsewhere), we live in a society that hates diversity. Every TV commercial, movie, and social situation ridicules anything that does not fit into a nice homogenized view of things. Just look at how geeks, gays, and various minorities are made fun of on tv. Most comedy is aimed at making someone different the brunt of a joke.
When I look at high school, I see this same lack of tolerance for things that are different. The cool kids essentially are mimicking what they are taught by our society. The poor kids on the receiving side of it go through hell because of this.
We need to start teaching children (and adults) that being different is a good thing. If everyone were really the same it would be a super boring place.
-Tom
P.S. - In understanding some of the forces that may have driven these kids, I have to believe more was going on in their lives. Perhaps abusive parents or a mental illness led them to shooting up a school. As far as I can tell a large percentage of children go through this stuff and never do anything so violent. Violent crime for children is down too.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't see how this could work. I mean a horse would have no chance of winning with that robot on its back.
I think you are thinking of the wrong definition of handicap. Electro made the horses handicapped...
Yeah, that was a pretty reasonable answer. If I could boil it down to one sentence I would say it would be: Popularity of a theory makes it worth covering.
This leads to a few refinements: Who finds it popular (concensus of experts vs concensus of news watchers)? ; If you can find no factual supporting evidence, but it is popular, then should it still be covered (if the stork theory of child birth was popular, but no one could find any storks do you still need to cover it)?
I think critical and/or unpopular reporting is reasonable if the reporter is unable to find anything reasonable supporting popular opinion. I think my two refinements above support that this is reasonable at times. Perhaps, they still need to state they could find nothing credible (I can imagine that going over well - No STORKS! That guy is some crazy egg-head that does not understand child birth).
"You there, peasant! I have been exposed to the opinions of the contrarians, and yet I disagree with them! But because you are not as smart and wise and 'insighful' as I am, you must not be allowed to do this thing that I have done, for you may be misled where I was not. Therefore, for your own good, I will define for you the parameters of legitimate discourse, for I fear that your lack of intelligence will prevent you from coming to the 'correct' conclusion, as defined by me."
Clearly the counter argument to this is how many sides do you have to show before you are no longer being elitist? There is rarely only two views to any subject. Logically, you have a point; but from a practical standpoint it seems unrealistic.
Whether you are doing a book review or are a news reporter, you have to use some judgement and common sense. It may not satisfy everyone, but covering all angles generally will not work. You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere...People will stop watching if you sound more like "In Search Of..." instead of the news.
One historical correction (at least I think it is) is that surgical team is not much like paired programming.
It has been years since I read the book, but I think the idea behind the surgical team was to have a master surgeon who would straighten stuff out to make things consistent and cohesive. So he performs reviews (design/code). A more reactive approach as people do work before showing it to the master surgeon. I do not remember any other multiple-developer interaction besides this.
Paired programming, on the other hand, seems more proactive. It allows the work to be reviewed "real-time". I am not a huge fan of paired programming, but I do think it creates better designs (it is not as helpful in improving implementation -- unit tests is the solution to improving implementation).
Also as an aside Beck, Cunningham, and co. were not the first people to do paired programming. There is some older ACM article that did it (first thing I read on it) before them. I am sure that author was not the first to do it either...
PS - I am not an XP guy (though it offers plenty of food for thought).
PPS - Notice how many times the reviewer used 'Zealot' in the review....was he reviewing the book or the XP community?
Microsofts patience and tenacity is an asset for them. However, they have been shown to abandon projects over the years (MS Bob anyone?). So it is worth noting that they do not always stick with it. Also sticking with a losing dog cannot always be a wise move (I think they realize this generally).
From an OSS perspective, 20 different "Gnifty" apps may show up, but as long as at least one succeeds; then all is well for OSS. I don't really consider this idea that many will fail as any different than from the closed source world. Many companies have put out word processors...Where are they? Is that a blemish on closed-source software as a model?
Also OSS does not have to win every battle to win the war (if we want to use such an analogy).
In fact, losing a battle seems to have no effect on OSS at all. They just keep coming...
Half the the replies are along the lines: "Geez, some dumbass will be my partner and drag me down like an anchor. Without them I can write my godlike code in peace..."
I doubt there are many people in the world that can really make this sort of claim and be justified. Certainly not half the peanut gallery known as slashdot. We all just like to think we are that good, because we can always see people who seem alot worse.
Paired programming will create higher quality designs/code and think thats what software developers should be focusing on.
I will get back under the bridge now.
"That's a lie. If you consider ALL taxes (federal, state, and local) the highest 20% pays between 50%-60%. Tell me how this is fair?"
Unless you are Ronald Reagan who bragged about paying only one dollar a year in taxes for years (he probably still does). Maybe only bedtime for bonzos is smart enough to not pay taxes....
I am not sure I understand this argument...The fact that you have a choice as to whether something is an attribute or a tag makes the language inconsistent? Is this any different than any OO language where programmers have a choice to store attributes as a primitive or promote them to a first class citizen by making it a class?
I suspect, design patterns (like Gang of Four) exist that allow people to properly structure the schema of their data for the task at hand. I will look at your other data interchange formats to try and understand your point better (KIF,
Nothing against XML, one just has to ask, what does it really buy me ?
The example that I always see is the mythical unix system where all of the
I do not think XML is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I do see alot of work eliminated by having such a standard.
Also, I think XML can be much simpler to read than ad hoc formats in many cases (especially when I first encounter the new format). In some cases XML is not as clear (typically because it is not as concise). Very few things are the best at everything though.
-Tom
If you factor in the fact that industrial farming only uses a few strains of popular produce (corn, potatos, etc...) and also depend heavily on herbicides. It only takes one super-wilt or super-locust to create mass starvation. Over-population and distribution will magnify the problem too.
-M
Mr. Katz,
Some of your articles require too much work to decode. You make lots of points that seem to come together to make a larger point, but it is layed out in some stream of consciousness way. In articles like this, I struggle to understand your message (in fact in this one, I just stopped reading after awhile).
I suggest you start creating an outline before you write your feature. Also, structure your features with actual paragraphs (as opposed to one or two sentences thoughts)....I should probably not be giving specifics so much, considering I am not an author and not a very good writer.
I do think the general topics you talk about are very interesting, but I think your current literary style is a turn-off.
-Mo
I thought that it was a play off a Jamacian stereotype before I had heard it online. I think the sound of Jar Jar's accent and the Kettle drums at the end (carribean music -- come on?) made me think that.
I like his if anyone thought that it was racist then they are reflecting their own racism argument. Whooie. I am not sure I found it rascist so much as unimaginative anyways.
I agree that Star Wars is a childrens movie, but saying that the Ewoks and Jar Jar are not too annoying is like saying Microsoft uses fair licensing practices. I am sure all children above the age of 7 agree. Perhaps in the next movie he can have Barney make a cameo? Maybe even have the Teletubbies show up as Jedi Knights...
Slurping away on Darth Maul Taco Bell commemorative glass,
-Modok
This has to be one of the most cheezy advertising gimmicks on the net right now. I mean
come on who didn't laugh when their logo popped up. I mean James Dean looks like he is strutting off of a J. Crew catalog (or perhaps some Gap commercial). Hardly what anyone conjures up as a rebel these days.
Also, talking about rebels, how many IT people want to buy a rebelous solution? HEH.
-T
In the US (probably elsewhere), we live in a society that hates diversity. Every TV commercial, movie, and social situation ridicules anything that does not fit into a nice homogenized view of things. Just look at how geeks, gays, and various minorities are made fun of on tv. Most comedy is aimed at making someone different the brunt of a joke.
When I look at high school, I see this same lack of tolerance for things that are different. The cool kids essentially are mimicking what they are taught by our society. The poor kids on the receiving side of it go through hell because of this.
We need to start teaching children (and adults) that being different is a good thing. If everyone were really the same it would be a super boring place.
-Tom
P.S. - In understanding some of the forces that may have driven these kids, I have to believe more was going on in their lives. Perhaps abusive parents or a mental illness led them to shooting up a school. As far as I can tell a large percentage of children go through this stuff and never do anything so violent. Violent crime for children is down too.