I apologize for not having complete references at hand. Communications of the ACM and Risks Forum have both published quite a few examples. Three that come to mind are:
When United Airlines styled itself UAL Corp, they started a project to replace various airline, hotel, and car reservatations with one super-disco system. Cost: 200M USD. Result: failure and reorganization of company
Australia's largest bank started a similar project to replace all their retail, stock, bond, and exchange systems with one uber-"risk management" system based on some advanced algebric theory. Cost: 150M USD. Result: failure.
The US FAA initiated a 10-year project to replace the North American air traffic control system (which then and now runs in 1401 emulation mode on current generation IBM mainframes!). Cost: 2B USD. Result: total failure, nothing salvagable.
That's all I can think of right now, but I am sure others can add more.
Well...... you were doing fine with examples until you got to nuclear power plants. Right here in my home town, Trojan Nuclear Powerplant[...]
Just for the record, I have worked in nuclear construction as well as other large-scale engineering environments. I am aware (sometimes painfully) of the examples that have been provided.
Yes, some of these large-scale projects went over schedule and over budget (the worst I can think of those that were completed is Clinton Nuclear Power Plant: estimate of 6 years and $800 million for a 2-unit, 1600 MW plant; actual was 12 years and $6 billion for a _one_ unit, 800 MW plant. Which was just recently sold for $20 million!).
But - most of these projects did get finished sooner or later, at costs no more than 4x their original estimate, and did fulfill their intended function. This cannot be said for many large software projects - or medium-sized ones, for that matter.
(A) A project estimate at $1,000,000, which might blow the budget and csot $2,000,000.
(B) The same project estimate at $10,000,000 and come in on budget?
The problem is that the recent history of large-scale software project has been: (i) Estimate of 5,000,000 (ii) actual expenditure at project termination: 45,000,000 (iii) probability of success: 20%.
Given that history, yes, I would prefer the 10,000,000 projet that came in as budgeted.
If software would use as much energy on estimating each new task as construction projects did, developing software would be extremely expensive. Just imagine that you had to do a while-loop according to an ISO standard, and another while loop according to another ISO standard, because the two while loops were in different functions that were categorized differently by a third ISO standard. Instead we hire a bunch of programmers and make them program themselves. Sometimes we do it a little more complicated, like Open-Source, Xtreme Programming etc., but it's still a bunch of programmers hacking around.
But perhaps the software might actually work, hmmmmm?
Don't take me too literally here: I am no big fan of ISO 9xxx processes or the rigidity they create. However, the argument that software can't be developed successfully due to the difficulty of developing software is a self-reinforcing system.
Very large and complex projects do get completed, sometimes even on-time/on-budget. Examples include skyscrapers, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, power plants (whether conventional or nuclear), oil refineries, B-747/A-320, etc. And all of these systems nowadays have a software component as well.
So the easy response is that bad management in general, and bad project management in particular, is responsible for software project failures. While this is no doubt true, the next question has to be, why do software projects have such bad project management?
I don't have a good answer, but one thing that occurs to me is the lack of a fixed endpoint. When an oil refinery ships its first load of POL, it is complete. When an aircraft carrier launches its first plane, it is complete. But the amorphous and mallable nature of software means that it is hard to define an exact endpoint, and very hard to avoid changing the definition of the endpoint as the project proceeds. So things keep "creeping" along until disaster occurs.
They don't register for the draft, they register for the selective service.
To the best of my knowledge, the only form of Selective Service that has ever existed has been conscription into the military services (or the essentially equivalent alternatives involving objector status). There has been discussion of other forms of national service but I am not aware of any of these being implementated. Could you provide some examples?
The Patent Policy Working Group makes decisions by consensus. Invited experts are considered equally with W3C Members in assessing consensus. Note (not particularly in response to your question) that consensus means broad agreement, not unanimity. Under W3C process, those who dissent from consensus decisions have a right to file minority reports, what we call a formal object.
The problem with this response is as described in a comment that I forwarded to the W3C Patent Policy mailing list:
W3C's initial response to public comments on RAND could be construed as
an attempt to control the debate via a "good bill/bad bill" strategy.
That is, the current status quo is for the Web to be based on open,
non-proprietary standards. A proposal is mooted to implement a RAND (or
UFO) policy for new Web standards. Critics of this policy are then told
that they must "be constructive" in their criticism of the UFO policy,
as the choice is between a very onerous UFO policy and one which, having
been "constructively criticized", is only slightly less onerous. The
choice of retaining or strengthening the status quo (no patented
technology in Web standards) is taken off the table before the debate
begins.
I see nothing in the responses provided that is responsive to this concern.
Up until a couple of months ago I enjoyed playing laser tag with my sons. After 9/11 I realized that (a) the Army uses this stuff in training (b) my boys only have a couple of years until they have to register for the draft.
Your question seems to suggest that we are being 'naively' dragged along in a larger campaign to make the Web into a more closed, proprietary environment.
Two possible alternatives here: (a) the W3C is working hard to balance competing interests in a reasonable manner (b) the W3C is not being 'naively' dragged into an attempt to make the Web a 100% propritary network, but is in fact aware that is the goal of a RAND policy and is participating wholeheartedly.
Any comments on which description is closer to the truth?
For instance, here is what Paul from WinInformant has to say:
"InfoWorld stood alone this week when it declared that Windows XP significantly underperformed Windows 2000 and Windows 9x in its tests. Not only do the controversial InfoWorld results fly in the face of Microsoft's published results and actual real-world use, they refute every independent XP performance test performed to date. One gets the idea that... nah... InfoWorld was trying to make XP lose[...]
Infoworld was once an independent trade publication. When they saw the success that the ZD publications were having as a result of selling their souls to the highest bidding vendor, they started down that road as well. But it always seemed to me that perhaps they had just rented their souls, not sold them outright, and there was some hope of a recovery.
I don't have the data to say what the technical answer is on W2K vs. XP. However, just because the ZD empire shouts something in unison doesn't mean it is true.
Opening for companies to "own" parts of a W3C standard, through a RAND patent, creates a huge incentive to gain patents that the W3C standards can't live without.
Agreed, but that very point was raised in the questions, and it was skillfully evaded. So I suspect this is exactly the purpose of the RAND proposal.
I would ask all Slashdotters concerned about this situation to read these response, read the W3C Patent Committee's October meeting minutes, and submit another round of comments via the
W3C e-mail address. Given the answers shown here, I really don't have much hope, but there is some possibility it might help.
Daniel's responses were well considered and reasonable, especially in the face of some of the sharp-and-pointy questions.
Respectfully, I would have to disagree. I found quite a few of his answers, particularly those to questions which questioned the motives of commercial players in this game, to be evasive and non-responsive.
I sincerely hope that there is a chance for openness to at least have a voice in this process, and maybe even to prevail. But the responses given here make it sound as if the fix is already in, and the open Web is history.
however, MS is required to have all licenced OEMs be under uniform pricing. so they can't increese it 200%
The problem being that there are about 87,000 different ways to evade such a restriction. Simplest one is to create 5 versions of XP for different "markets". "Oops - sorry, now that we check your license renewal application, you were in the wrong market. You were a Class D vendor and we have to move you to Class C. That'll be 200%, please. in soft, non-recordable voice And next time, don't preload Netscape, wise guy."
Without strong oversight, these kind of games will commence, oh, next January. And DOJ's behaviour doesn't point toward strong oversight.
If I understand this correctly, this means that computer makers can sell Linux or *BSD boxes (or OSless) without retaliation. Does this mean no Microsoft tax?
The problem being that such such arrangments are almost never written down on paper, never discussed except among "family", and never enforced in public.
So XYZ Computer Company decided to take this anti-trust thing seriously and offer Netscape on the desktop, eh? No problem - we will just "forget" to renew their Windows license at the end of the year. Nothing deliberate; just an oversight. Of course, since they are no longer a licensee, when they do renew, they will be in a 200% higher price bracket. Sorry about that, but we enforce those rules on everyone. And by the way, the BSA will be around to audit you and your customers next week.
Anyone who has worked for a major corporation knows how these things are done. As did Judge Jackson, which is why he recommneded breakup. Oh well.
No, markets arent supposed to be "openly competitive". Competition is supposed to be nasty, and mean, and vicious, and hard, and nasty bad really hard, and on top of that, full of intimidation and skulduggery. Thats what competition means. Just like in football - it means hitting them hard, using anything you can, and clawing to the top.
So it's OK if I use brass knuckles in the scrum? How about a blackjack? A pistol? Larger or smaller than.22 caliber?
I trust the point is clear. Even in hard, nasty, brutish, and short competitions there have to be some ground rules, or society just goes back to the prehistoric concept of "whoever can kill the most men and rape the most women wins". Which is how it often is in the animal kingdom, but I thought we had agreed as human beings to try to do better than that?
Much of what Microsoft did was fair competition. Novell, for example, shot itself in the foot. But Microsoft also slipped little Christmas presents into Windows and Office service packs that deliberatly broke standards Novell had set for the whole industry (and from which Microsoft had taken benefit) for 10 years. That was not legitimate competition.
Similarly, threatening to withold Windows licenses from manufactuers who wanted to put Netscape on the desktop was not fair competition, when Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows.
A few years ago there was a lot of buzz around so-called "A/V hard drives", which were said to provide a more even flow of bits in/out for video applications. The theory was that it was better to have a consistent, even if a little slower, flow of data to prevent interruptions during vidoe editing, playback, etc. This was supposedly accomplished by better management of thermal recalibration cycles and similar demon tweaks.
Does this technology still exist? Perhaps a better first question is, did it ever exist, or was it just a bunch of marketing smoke? If it did, is it still around, and if so in what products?
It seems to me that if such a smoothing of bit flow is possible it would be advantageous for games as well as straight video.
sPh
Are they making it as hard as possible for...
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 2, Troll
...the faithful?
I actually shelled out the 20 USD for a CD of Netscape 6.1. I even registered it.
Now 6.2 is released and (a) I get no notification (b) there is no "Netscape Update" menu pick to _find_ the update (c) it appears that instead of a differential upgrade, I have to download the whole 20 MB again.
I have been using Netscape since 1994. I _want_ to keep using Netscape. Am I missing something, or are they _trying_ to drive me to IE?
sPh
Why is NASA switching to MySQL from Oracle [fcw.com] and noticing speed increases?
I will defer to you on the advantages/disadvantages of using databases to store OO data.
However, citing NASA as a source for technology or trends is a bit silly, for a number of reasons. The primary one is this: NASA is so large, and so diverse, that at one of their sites/on one of their projects they use one of just about every technology product you can name.
I was once running two back-to-back software evaluations for products in the $20-million range. For both applications, the top ten vendors all claimed that their system was "used by NASA for the Space Shuttle". We checked up and guess what - they were all telling the truth.
i have a similar problem on a smaller scale. In our house we had some problems with arson (6 times in two years). So installed two WebCams and connected them with my LAN. I wrote a small perl- script on my linux server which gets an image every second and writes it onto the hard disk.
The guy who submitted this story "Bondheadguy" resolves to RobJMcCready@yahoo.com... A quick search on "Rob McCready" yields a University of Toronto grad student (or maybe former grad student now) who is developing hardware based face recognition equipment. Check out This link... [nce.gc.ca]
Now you can make your own decision about helping him out (or not).
I see no reason why this should be modded "Offtopic". The question of intent is most certainly a key aspect of this topic!
That's an awful lot of data. Why exactly are you doing this? What is the application? Who are you working for? If you are working for/in the United States, does this application meet the requirements of the 4th and 1st Amendments to the Constitution?
I was hoping to just change the style sheet, but Netscape is totally busted, so it looks like separate scripts. Sure the IE version will be the priority, but when you can increase profits 8-10% of more (in fact, increasing revenue by 8% should increase profits 10%-12% based upon some fixed costs, etc.) it becomes really hard to justify ignoring.
Would you be justified in popping a window that said something like: "Hey, we aren't affiliated with Netscape, but we noticed you are using NS4.7x. We suggest that you upgrade to Netscape 6.1 here(URL)" ?
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize for not having complete references at hand. Communications of the ACM and Risks Forum have both published quite a few examples. Three that come to mind are:
Australia's largest bank started a similar project to replace all their retail, stock, bond, and exchange systems with one uber-"risk management" system based on some advanced algebric theory. Cost: 150M USD. Result: failure.
The US FAA initiated a 10-year project to replace the North American air traffic control system (which then and now runs in 1401 emulation mode on current generation IBM mainframes!). Cost: 2B USD. Result: total failure, nothing salvagable.
That's all I can think of right now, but I am sure others can add more.
sPh
Yes, some of these large-scale projects went over schedule and over budget (the worst I can think of those that were completed is Clinton Nuclear Power Plant: estimate of 6 years and $800 million for a 2-unit, 1600 MW plant; actual was 12 years and $6 billion for a _one_ unit, 800 MW plant. Which was just recently sold for $20 million!).
But - most of these projects did get finished sooner or later, at costs no more than 4x their original estimate, and did fulfill their intended function. This cannot be said for many large software projects - or medium-sized ones, for that matter.
sPh
Given that history, yes, I would prefer the 10,000,000 projet that came in as budgeted.
sPh
Don't take me too literally here: I am no big fan of ISO 9xxx processes or the rigidity they create. However, the argument that software can't be developed successfully due to the difficulty of developing software is a self-reinforcing system.
sPh
Very large and complex projects do get completed, sometimes even on-time/on-budget. Examples include skyscrapers, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, power plants (whether conventional or nuclear), oil refineries, B-747/A-320, etc. And all of these systems nowadays have a software component as well.
So the easy response is that bad management in general, and bad project management in particular, is responsible for software project failures. While this is no doubt true, the next question has to be, why do software projects have such bad project management?
I don't have a good answer, but one thing that occurs to me is the lack of a fixed endpoint. When an oil refinery ships its first load of POL, it is complete. When an aircraft carrier launches its first plane, it is complete. But the amorphous and mallable nature of software means that it is hard to define an exact endpoint, and very hard to avoid changing the definition of the endpoint as the project proceeds. So things keep "creeping" along until disaster occurs.
sPh
sPh
I see nothing in the responses provided that is responsive to this concern.
sPh
Up until a couple of months ago I enjoyed playing laser tag with my sons. After 9/11 I realized that (a) the Army uses this stuff in training (b) my boys only have a couple of years until they have to register for the draft.
A little less fun for me after that...
sPh
Any comments on which description is closer to the truth?
sPh
Infoworld was once an independent trade publication. When they saw the success that the ZD publications were having as a result of selling their souls to the highest bidding vendor, they started down that road as well. But it always seemed to me that perhaps they had just rented their souls, not sold them outright, and there was some hope of a recovery.
I don't have the data to say what the technical answer is on W2K vs. XP. However, just because the ZD empire shouts something in unison doesn't mean it is true.
sPh
sPh
sPh
I sincerely hope that there is a chance for openness to at least have a voice in this process, and maybe even to prevail. But the responses given here make it sound as if the fix is already in, and the open Web is history.
sPh
Without strong oversight, these kind of games will commence, oh, next January. And DOJ's behaviour doesn't point toward strong oversight.
sPh
So XYZ Computer Company decided to take this anti-trust thing seriously and offer Netscape on the desktop, eh? No problem - we will just "forget" to renew their Windows license at the end of the year. Nothing deliberate; just an oversight. Of course, since they are no longer a licensee, when they do renew, they will be in a 200% higher price bracket. Sorry about that, but we enforce those rules on everyone. And by the way, the BSA will be around to audit you and your customers next week.
Anyone who has worked for a major corporation knows how these things are done. As did Judge Jackson, which is why he recommneded breakup. Oh well.
sPh
sPh
I trust the point is clear. Even in hard, nasty, brutish, and short competitions there have to be some ground rules, or society just goes back to the prehistoric concept of "whoever can kill the most men and rape the most women wins". Which is how it often is in the animal kingdom, but I thought we had agreed as human beings to try to do better than that?
Much of what Microsoft did was fair competition. Novell, for example, shot itself in the foot. But Microsoft also slipped little Christmas presents into Windows and Office service packs that deliberatly broke standards Novell had set for the whole industry (and from which Microsoft had taken benefit) for 10 years. That was not legitimate competition.
Similarly, threatening to withold Windows licenses from manufactuers who wanted to put Netscape on the desktop was not fair competition, when Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows.
So let's not be so brutish, eh?
sPh
A few years ago there was a lot of buzz around so-called "A/V hard drives", which were said to provide a more even flow of bits in/out for video applications. The theory was that it was better to have a consistent, even if a little slower, flow of data to prevent interruptions during vidoe editing, playback, etc. This was supposedly accomplished by better management of thermal recalibration cycles and similar demon tweaks.
Does this technology still exist? Perhaps a better first question is, did it ever exist, or was it just a bunch of marketing smoke? If it did, is it still around, and if so in what products?
It seems to me that if such a smoothing of bit flow is possible it would be advantageous for games as well as straight video.
sPh
...the faithful?
I actually shelled out the 20 USD for a CD of Netscape 6.1. I even registered it.
Now 6.2 is released and (a) I get no notification (b) there is no "Netscape Update" menu pick to _find_ the update (c) it appears that instead of a differential upgrade, I have to download the whole 20 MB again.
I have been using Netscape since 1994. I _want_ to keep using Netscape. Am I missing something, or are they _trying_ to drive me to IE?
sPh
sPh
However, citing NASA as a source for technology or trends is a bit silly, for a number of reasons. The primary one is this: NASA is so large, and so diverse, that at one of their sites/on one of their projects they use one of just about every technology product you can name.
I was once running two back-to-back software evaluations for products in the $20-million range. For both applications, the top ten vendors all claimed that their system was "used by NASA for the Space Shuttle". We checked up and guess what - they were all telling the truth.
So you need a better example.
sPh
sPh
sPh
That's an awful lot of data. Why exactly are you doing this? What is the application? Who are you working for? If you are working for/in the United States, does this application meet the requirements of the 4th and 1st Amendments to the Constitution?
Just a few minor questions.
sPh
sPh