"The so-called 'intellectuals' still look down with infinite superciliousness on anyone who has not been through the prescribed schools and allowed them to pump the necessary knowledge into him. The question of what a man can do is never asked but rather, what has he learned? 'Educated' people look upon any imbecile who is plastered with a number of academic certificates as superior to the ablest young fellow who lacks these precious documents."
In a land where money is speech, the corporation with the most money will end up with the most government power.
And the point of the money is that the people doing the voting don't actually want who they want, they want who they're told to want. Money behind irrationality beats no money behind facts almost every time.
The whole point of "free speech" is so that government power doesn't have the power to make irrationality the only thing you hear. It should put the same restriction on money power.
I was talking about traditional methodologies that include the sort of traceability that Agile methodologies duck. With proper care in traceability, you can tolerate requirement changes better, since you can identify the extent of the effect on the existing code and test while you're doing the requirement-change analysis. If you don't have that, you'll have to hope that the developers have enough knowledge of the code to give you an accurate plan. And if you don't have that, a requirement change can become a nightmare of analysis that both fans out seemingly interminably and sends you down a forest of blind alleys.
Wait. You actually believe that voters voted on substantive issues?
These candidates were targeted by the corporations who don't want net neutrality. They heavily funded their opponents, no matter what nonsense the candidate's campaign advisors chose to use as campaign propaganda.
You can bet none of the candidates even mentioned net neutrality. The supporters avoid it because it's complicated and will get them only a few votes. The opponents because it's complicated and if they actually explained it it would actually drive votes to the supporters.
But while net neutrality was never an issue to the voters, you can bet it was the issue to some of the biggest donors.
Elections following the Citizens United decision will absolutely not be about the issues, and will only resemble democracy in form.
With net neutrality, every ISP has an incentive to deliver the best service for the lowest price without screwing you out of what you paid for or conning you into paying more because you underestimated the bandwidth you use.
And with net neutrality no ISP has an incentive to manipulate opinion in its subscriber base by throttling data from opinionated websites.
Allowing your ISP to become the arbiter of your knowledge is not why the government (through DARPA) invented the Internet.
One of the basic tenets of Agile is that you don't use inexperienced people.
Much of the agility comes from the fact that your team consists of pros who don't have to hack so much as lay down code and keep going.
If you give someone a task for which they aren't trained, you're shoving logs under the bogies of your train. The whole thing will stop, but not all at once, and the spot where it starts stopping will be the least happy about it.
But there is no methodology that can prevent that.
No, there is none that can prevent it.
But there are methodologies that can reduce the cost of late changes. But what they do is make the up-front cost larger, because you have to build in traceability, maintainability, and testability, and overbuild areas of the design that should be flexible rather than form-fitting to the original requirements.
"Welcome changing requirements, even late in development."
Sure. I can do that.
But you'll have to welcome changing budgets, even late in development; and the budget changes will be randomly distributed from no problem at all to wildly disproportionate to the requirement change.
Because not all requirements trace to the same amount of code. What? What does "trace" mean? Oh, right, we're being an Agile shop for your project, so we don't do that stuff. We're just expected to know what pieces of the code are affected by your change, and go do it, because we wrote it so agilely that we haven't had time to forget, or have employee turnover, or develop a system more complex than a single mind can understand.
Because you are, as you said, willing to take the expense at the back end rather than up front.
No doubt they have a "process" that includes running regression tests on release builds.
Also no doubt this process is completely inadequate for most needs and products, and exists only to serve a pro-forma certification process, meaning in this case they should have tested the feature they changed and released it, planning to update it on the original schedule if testing showed a regression problem. Because letting your users risk getting rooted is worse than letting them take a risk on a beta release.
But then you get IT droids whining that they have to push it to their herds twice.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're confusing it for "public spaces".
Which, btw, are not in the public domain.
The open ocean might be considered public domain. But good luck downloading it on the Internet.
But where does the Dope Fish live?
#SeigFail!
"The so-called 'intellectuals' still look down with infinite superciliousness on anyone who has not been through the prescribed schools and allowed them to pump the necessary knowledge into him. The question of what a man can do is never asked but rather, what has he learned? 'Educated' people look upon any imbecile who is plastered with a number of academic certificates as superior to the ablest young fellow who lacks these precious documents."
Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
Anyone else get the feeling that these ivory tower intellectual types are looking down their noses at us?
Every time someone asks that I think, or say, "yes, and it's well deserved."
It's borrowed from the use of the term to refer to selecting someone for a fraternity.
IIRC, it's something the Skull and Bones came up with, which is probably another reason to outlaw them.
FTW
First article ever contributed by Ed Felten's mom.
I'm pretty sure I was cutting and pasting and cropping and rotating images on uVAXen a couple of years before this.
Seriously. /. is supposed to be full of net wonks and we get this pissy pile of subthreads about the name of the place?
There were 71 posts when I came in. You all should have found the h4xx0rz by now.
Who decides what a country is "really" called? You're just going to accept the decisions of whoever has the most guns?
That's usually how it's done.
In a land where money is speech, the corporation with the most money will end up with the most government power.
And the point of the money is that the people doing the voting don't actually want who they want, they want who they're told to want. Money behind irrationality beats no money behind facts almost every time.
The whole point of "free speech" is so that government power doesn't have the power to make irrationality the only thing you hear. It should put the same restriction on money power.
(*SNIP!*)
I was talking about traditional methodologies that include the sort of traceability that Agile methodologies duck. With proper care in traceability, you can tolerate requirement changes better, since you can identify the extent of the effect on the existing code and test while you're doing the requirement-change analysis. If you don't have that, you'll have to hope that the developers have enough knowledge of the code to give you an accurate plan. And if you don't have that, a requirement change can become a nightmare of analysis that both fans out seemingly interminably and sends you down a forest of blind alleys.
Your ISP is the one directing that attack, and Net Neutrality is the redundancy you need to protect your control center's connection.
Wait. You actually believe that voters voted on substantive issues?
These candidates were targeted by the corporations who don't want net neutrality. They heavily funded their opponents, no matter what nonsense the candidate's campaign advisors chose to use as campaign propaganda.
You can bet none of the candidates even mentioned net neutrality. The supporters avoid it because it's complicated and will get them only a few votes. The opponents because it's complicated and if they actually explained it it would actually drive votes to the supporters.
But while net neutrality was never an issue to the voters, you can bet it was the issue to some of the biggest donors.
Elections following the Citizens United decision will absolutely not be about the issues, and will only resemble democracy in form.
With net neutrality, every ISP has an incentive to deliver the best service for the lowest price without screwing you out of what you paid for or conning you into paying more because you underestimated the bandwidth you use.
And with net neutrality no ISP has an incentive to manipulate opinion in its subscriber base by throttling data from opinionated websites.
Allowing your ISP to become the arbiter of your knowledge is not why the government (through DARPA) invented the Internet.
That depends on what you're trying to get into orbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
Not so much a fallacy as an example of the scientific process.
Don't like the data? Change your hypothesis, I say.
Well, there's a consistency there, then.
One of the basic tenets of Agile is that you don't use inexperienced people.
Much of the agility comes from the fact that your team consists of pros who don't have to hack so much as lay down code and keep going.
If you give someone a task for which they aren't trained, you're shoving logs under the bogies of your train. The whole thing will stop, but not all at once, and the spot where it starts stopping will be the least happy about it.
But there is no methodology that can prevent that.
No, there is none that can prevent it.
But there are methodologies that can reduce the cost of late changes. But what they do is make the up-front cost larger, because you have to build in traceability, maintainability, and testability, and overbuild areas of the design that should be flexible rather than form-fitting to the original requirements.
"Welcome changing requirements, even late in development."
Sure. I can do that.
But you'll have to welcome changing budgets, even late in development; and the budget changes will be randomly distributed from no problem at all to wildly disproportionate to the requirement change.
Because not all requirements trace to the same amount of code. What? What does "trace" mean? Oh, right, we're being an Agile shop for your project, so we don't do that stuff. We're just expected to know what pieces of the code are affected by your change, and go do it, because we wrote it so agilely that we haven't had time to forget, or have employee turnover, or develop a system more complex than a single mind can understand.
Because you are, as you said, willing to take the expense at the back end rather than up front.
No doubt they have a "process" that includes running regression tests on release builds.
Also no doubt this process is completely inadequate for most needs and products, and exists only to serve a pro-forma certification process, meaning in this case they should have tested the feature they changed and released it, planning to update it on the original schedule if testing showed a regression problem. Because letting your users risk getting rooted is worse than letting them take a risk on a beta release.
But then you get IT droids whining that they have to push it to their herds twice.
...Profit!
And if he'd said "They're Earthers. They have extras." would it be the same?
From what I remember of JCL, you could probably have adapted it to any machine.
And I seem to remember a few emulators that ran on UNIX...