Re:Here are a few criticisms...
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
The first link starts with a mistake and is from 2003. A lot has changed in "agile development" since then.
And the second actually praises the way Google does things (quite "agile" if I may say so) while criticizing fads and the methodology-of-the-month.
I couldn't agree more with Steve about how bad it is with the agile fad and all the courses and whatever people keep selling and hyping about. And I do hate using to world agile to mean so much different stuff.
But not-so-rigid-development-processes-that-kind-of-code-common-sense-about-development are indeed good in many scenarios. It's just not necessary to turn that into a religion as many people do.
Re:AGILE is about Mangagement CONTROL
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
Actually, neither PMI or CMMI push for the use of waterfall methodologies. I've worked in a CMMI 3 environment and we did XP. And I've also worked on projects "guided" by PMBOK managers and using Scrum.
But I know what you're talking about, I guess I've worked in similar situations, where people think this push exists. It usually happens because during their training, whoever talked about CMM or PMBOK used waterfall like phases or tools like a WBS as examples somewhere and people just assume it needs to be that way. Maybe one of the problems is the lack of people who have used "agile" in real life and know CMMI or PMBOK.
Just to conclude, while I do like some agile methodologies and do think they are the best option in a myriad of scenarios, they will not work in every situation. One has to choose the best tool for the job at hand. Waterfall and others do have their place. It's just not everywhere, especially if the requirements are not really well understood.
Your post did seek to temper the outrage against China, by reminding the audience, that the rest of the world is not perfect either. Like it or not, this did defend China.
Nope, not at all. You misinterpreted my post. I reminded the audience that people should be outraged not only about them. My point was very specific against the hypocrisy of criticizing one country and not another.
Actually, no, countries don't develop in isolation. What's considered unacceptable (by the "world community") for the US today, ought to be considered just as unacceptable for China.
If you really want to be objective, yes, you do need to take development context into account.
And the other weak point in your argument is exactly in the "unacceptable by the world community". In my opinion, it is unacceptable. But I didn't claim anything about the opinion of the world.
Also, from the point of view of a country, if they see another country doing things and no one criticizes, does that means it is acceptable by the "world community"? If it does, than that country can do what the others did and expect no critic. If it does not, them your argument is deeply flawed.
A show-trial, that convicted (in absentia) "ugly Americans" of kidnapping a foreigner, whose "guilt" was not even subject of the trial...
Did US citizens act in another country and subtract a person from there? Is this ok? In my opinion it is not. Only the Italians could have arrested him inside Italy. And I'm not even taking into account if he was guilty of something or what happened to him afterwards. That's another completely different discussion.
Regardless, China's police do this to their own citizens all the time — which means, as I predicted, whatever you can throw at the US, I can throw at China "with gusto".
Quite nice how you just forgot to reply to my mention of Guantanamo, huh?
What about the detainees there? Especially the cases of children held as "enemy combatants". Or, if your beef is with citizens, why not talk about Yaser Esam Hamdi (US citizen), held there and only released after agreeing to lose his citizenship?
You're somewhat right. But if you really want to be objective, you need to compare the two countries in similar times. So try comparing China now to the US during its industrialization.
Also, I nowhere defended China. Or singled out the US.
And for recent US "bad things", one such example just happened in Italy where several CIA operatives were considered guilty of kidnapping an innocent person; and that happened in a country were they are not even police.
Or look at what happened in Iraq and Guantanamo recently. I really don't think that's much far from what China does.
- You search through your e-mail messages for a link you need (for whatever reason) that some friend of yours sent you. - You find the message. - The link in the message is actually using a shortened URL. - The company that made the redirection is out of business. - You are screwed.
This all could be solved by creating a new.gTLD. Say,.lnk or.url; and selling one letter domains with the requisite that they (the buyers of those) share/backup their databases somewhat like this proposed organization.
I think the misunderstanding in your post is that the stand is not necessarily against not "paying for electronics records".
One can pay or not and receive or not the data in an open format.
If I pay for the electronic record, one can argue if I should pay as my taxes kind of already paid for that, but that is not the issue here.
The thing is, especially if I need to pay for the records, if I receive the data in a proprietary format then I need to pay for a piece of software to access that data.
In this case (closed format), one would need to pay at least twice to access the info: a- Pay 3 times: pay taxes, pay for the electronic record, pay for the software that reads the proprietary format. The last part would unjustly benefit the company that created/controls the locked format and penalizing the final user. b- Pay 2 times: pay taxes, do not pay for the electronic record, pay for the software that reads the proprietary format. Again, unjustly benefiting the company that controls the locked format and penalizing the final user.
If its an open format, there is no unjust benefit and extra burden on the person accessing the data.
First of all, 'open' formats has nothing to do with source code.
Second, "open source" is not synonym with "free software" (like software that uses the GPL as license). This has nothing to do with the discussion. And open source does not even means giving work away for free. If somebody sells their code, it is open source, for example.
Creative commons is another example of "opening" stuff that is not code.
I agree that there is a continuum from completely closed to completely open, but any format demanded by governments should be open and non encumbered by patents or other licenses.
There is nothing stopping someone or some company form writing a proprietary piece of software to read/write some open format. But in many cases it is not possible to have a open/free/whatever version of a software to read/write some closed format. This causes an artificial restriction on access to the information made available in that format, what should be inadmissible in certain scenarios.
Why should someone need to license or buy a piece of software form specific companies to have access to government data? This is unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
What about Ukrainian yahoos? :-P
Who was dominating what? WinMo dominating cell phones?
Have you ever heard of Nokia?
The first link starts with a mistake and is from 2003. A lot has changed in "agile development" since then.
And the second actually praises the way Google does things (quite "agile" if I may say so) while criticizing fads and the methodology-of-the-month.
I couldn't agree more with Steve about how bad it is with the agile fad and all the courses and whatever people keep selling and hyping about. And I do hate using to world
agile to mean so much different stuff.
But not-so-rigid-development-processes-that-kind-of-code-common-sense-about-development are indeed good in many scenarios. It's just not necessary to turn that into a religion as many people do.
Every methodology is about management control.
Actually, neither PMI or CMMI push for the use of waterfall methodologies. I've worked in a CMMI 3 environment and we did XP. And I've also worked on projects "guided" by PMBOK managers and using Scrum.
But I know what you're talking about, I guess I've worked in similar situations, where people think this push exists. It usually happens because during their training, whoever talked about CMM or PMBOK used waterfall like phases or tools like a WBS as examples somewhere and people just assume it needs to be that way. Maybe one of the problems is the lack of people who have used "agile" in real life and know CMMI or PMBOK.
Just to conclude, while I do like some agile methodologies and do think they are the best option in a myriad of scenarios, they will not work in every situation. One has to choose the best tool for the job at hand. Waterfall and others do have their place. It's just not everywhere, especially if the requirements are not really well understood.
Your post did seek to temper the outrage against China, by reminding the audience, that the rest of the world is not perfect either. Like it or not, this did defend China.
Nope, not at all. You misinterpreted my post. I reminded the audience that people should be outraged not only about them. My point was very specific against the hypocrisy of criticizing one country and not another.
Actually, no, countries don't develop in isolation. What's considered unacceptable (by the "world community") for the US today, ought to be considered just as unacceptable for China.
If you really want to be objective, yes, you do need to take development context into account.
And the other weak point in your argument is exactly in the "unacceptable by the world community". In my opinion, it is unacceptable. But I didn't claim anything about the opinion of the world.
Also, from the point of view of a country, if they see another country doing things and no one criticizes, does that means it is acceptable by the "world community"? If it does, than that country can do what the others did and expect no critic. If it does not, them your argument is deeply flawed.
A show-trial, that convicted (in absentia) "ugly Americans" of kidnapping a foreigner, whose "guilt" was not even subject of the trial...
Did US citizens act in another country and subtract a person from there? Is this ok?
In my opinion it is not. Only the Italians could have arrested him inside Italy. And I'm not even taking into account if he was guilty of something or what happened to him afterwards. That's another completely different discussion.
Regardless, China's police do this to their own citizens all the time — which means, as I predicted, whatever you can throw at the US, I can throw at China "with gusto".
Quite nice how you just forgot to reply to my mention of Guantanamo, huh?
What about the detainees there? Especially the cases of children held as "enemy combatants".
Or, if your beef is with citizens, why not talk about Yaser Esam Hamdi (US citizen), held there and only released after agreeing to lose his citizenship?
You're somewhat right. But if you really want to be objective, you need to compare the two countries in similar times. So try comparing China now to the US during its industrialization.
Also, I nowhere defended China. Or singled out the US.
And for recent US "bad things", one such example just happened in Italy where several CIA operatives were considered guilty of kidnapping an innocent person; and that happened in a country were they are not even police.
Or look at what happened in Iraq and Guantanamo recently. I really don't think that's much far from what China does.
I'm in no way defending China here, but in which way is it different from what the US, Russia or the UK do and have done in the past?
It just annoys me when people single out a nation (in this case China) when in their backyard the same happens. Talk about double standards... :-/
The same applies if you store your SMSs and IMs for future search.
And in the case of e-mail messages, as people in general are not so bright, Copy+Paste and there it is. Simple as that.
One simple example:
- You search through your e-mail messages for a link you need (for whatever reason) that some friend of yours sent you.
- You find the message.
- The link in the message is actually using a shortened URL.
- The company that made the redirection is out of business.
- You are screwed.
This all could be solved by creating a new .gTLD. Say, .lnk or .url; and selling one letter domains with the requisite that they (the buyers of those) share/backup their databases somewhat like this proposed organization.
Simple and moderately clean.
And, according to TFS, it is the biggest of them. :)
Killing somebody while drunk driving is murder in 1st degree. And should be treated as so.
When one starts do drink and is planning on driving later while drunk, the person is perfectly aware that he/she can kill somebody.
I thought NASCAR always turned left...
Those commies!
... whatever's left would be no bigger than a chihuahua's head.
So you're saying it would be as annoying? Guess Earth would survive...
Same here, Physics II. But there were 65 people in the class!!! :(
People used to kid that the professor wrote with one hand and erased the equations with his other hand so he had more space to fill again.
Man, I'm having nightmares tonight.
Either we know the same people, or we worked for the same companies. :)
Seriously, the last company I worked for got nicknamed "The PPT Company" by its employees. And it was not Microsoft. :-/
One word, alpine. :)
While I do like Erlang a lot and I liked some of Facebook's design decisions I've read about, their chat is really bad.
In my experience it is indeed unusable most of the time. And when it's working, it is just too slow.
One example of the top of my head. Huawei. Telecom and networking equipment.
Foo?
(Speaking of which, when is the last time anyone's deployed a large-scale distributed X11 application. Has to be 10-15 years.)
Last year. Oil and gas industry.
I think the misunderstanding in your post is that the stand is not necessarily against not "paying for electronics records".
One can pay or not and receive or not the data in an open format.
If I pay for the electronic record, one can argue if I should pay as my taxes kind of already paid for that, but that is not the issue here.
The thing is, especially if I need to pay for the records, if I receive the data in a proprietary format then I need to pay for a piece of software to access that data.
In this case (closed format), one would need to pay at least twice to access the info:
a- Pay 3 times: pay taxes, pay for the electronic record, pay for the software that reads the proprietary format. The last part would unjustly benefit the company that created/controls the locked format and penalizing the final user.
b- Pay 2 times: pay taxes, do not pay for the electronic record, pay for the software that reads the proprietary format. Again, unjustly benefiting the company that controls the locked format and penalizing the final user.
If its an open format, there is no unjust benefit and extra burden on the person accessing the data.
First of all, 'open' formats has nothing to do with source code.
Second, "open source" is not synonym with "free software" (like software that uses the GPL as license). This has nothing to do with the discussion. And open source does not even means giving work away for free. If somebody sells their code, it is open source, for example.
Creative commons is another example of "opening" stuff that is not code.
I agree that there is a continuum from completely closed to completely open, but any format demanded by governments should be open and non encumbered by patents or other licenses.
There is nothing stopping someone or some company form writing a proprietary piece of software to read/write some open format. But in many cases it is not possible to have a open/free/whatever version of a software to read/write some closed format. This causes an artificial restriction on access to the information made available in that format, what should be inadmissible in certain scenarios.
Why should someone need to license or buy a piece of software form specific companies to have access to government data? This is unacceptable.