Code reviews should be your lowest priority. They are the least efficient way of improving the quality of your software, in terms of hours invested vs. improvement in user experience. You are way better off entering feedback from actual customers, testers and UI designers, into an issue tracking system, prioritizing the issues, and working them down in order or priority.
Some supporters of code reviews advocate that they be run as a background task, during what is otherwise programmer idle time. If you are going to do them, that's probably the right way.
You can do good code reviews all day long and your software can remain unusable junk. You need to close the loop, examine how the the actual software works in the field and feed that back into work on the source code. Code reviews short-circuit the process by ignoring the actual performance of the software, instead using the quality of the source code as the measure of correctness. Users don't care about the correctness of your source code as gauged by comparison to a specification. They care about whether the software does stuff that they want it to do and is easy to use.
Code reviews are sometimes only a way for managers to cover their assess. In many organizations managerial competence is defined as adherence to procedures as documented by completed forms. When something blows up, the only artifacts investigators concern themselves with are documents defining procedures and written records documenting that the procedures defined in those documents were followed. Intelligence, good judgement, and actually producing a usable product are irrelevant in such environments. Records of code reviews are an artifact that managers can point to demonstrating their success in following a procedure. Code reviews are really big in regulated environments and especially on government funded projects. Unlike business which needs to sell stuff to actual people to survive, government projects are not required to ever furnish usable products and often do not.
All that said, code reviews do have some advantages. Programmers learn a lot from looking at each other's code and sometimes you have to push them to do that. And it does catch bugs, though the work in finding those is not prioritized by their impact on users, as it should be and is if you prioritize according to user feedback. And if you need highly reliable code, then you need to employ every possible resource for finding bugs, not just the fastest and most efficient, and code reviews are another one of those tools in your kit and you should use them.
If you put Bill Gates, Vinod Khosla, and Sergey Brin & Larry Page in a room together it would be a massive love fest; From statements each has made independently it appears they are in close agreement on the subject energy. Bill Gates states the issue well. Compare to interviews with Khosla on the subject of his investment strategy and the google.org REC initiative.
People who gained wealth and fame by bringing improved technologies to market instinctively apply the same approach to energy. That is the Silicon Valley approach. In contrast, the energy policy emanating from Washington D.C. is a combination of vote buying using cash handouts to favored constituencies, e.g. corn ethanol subsidies, and using government coercion to extort cash payments from the public directly into the hands of the politicians, e.g. Al Gore's carbon offsets business.
Genuinely greener technologies do not require government handouts. In fact, it is the opposite, they are cash cows for private investors. That is because efficiency is inherently and simultaneously more green and more profitable than inefficiency. The higher the ratio of outputs the more you get for less. That means spending less money on inputs and impacting the environment less by consuming fewer inputs in production per unit of output.
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Well, to quote Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal (link):
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
According to an article appearing in the online technology journal MicroScope.co.uk, here:
"...we rang the Egyptian Embassy for an explanation. We're not sure who we talked to, but they said that possibly a cleaner might have unplugged the Internet by mistake."
Eric Raymond presents a noteworthy analysis of the smartphone wars, here, in which he predicts Microsoft will fail in that market. Proceeding from the observation that the wireless broadband market has had negative profitably for the previous ten years:
...Windows Phone 7 is a no-hoper. Windows licensing fees are not just like NRE, they’re actually worse because they’re a recurring expense that will come right out of per-unit margin on sales and bring with it all the strategic problems of losing control of your software layer. It would take seriously bad drugs to get a carrier CEO to buy that combination.
Of course the same logic applies to a Windows 8 phone.
The test has an odd kind of validity; The foolish who choose Internet Explorer (instead of Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera) would be also the foolish victims of "Socially Engineered Malware". That is, the web browser for dupes protects its users from the same vulnerability which causes them to use it.
In light of the fact that clothiandidin was approved under not a Republican but Democratic President and Congress the grandparent post could be modified accordingly:
One more example of how Obama and his greedy incompetent Democrat asshats have screwed everybody. This stuff is used because of a regulatory approval that was granted in 2010, against the scientific advices of the experts.
It's just like Obama's handling of the BP Gulf oil spill and the coal mine explosion in West Virginia. There are systems in place to protect people and the environment, but when the Democrats gain control they selectively revoke oversight in return for campaign donations and other political favors. It takes five to fifteen years to see all the failures, and by then everyone forgets who turned over control to the crooks and lairs.
They just wave the flag, blame everything on the free market and greedy capitalists, scream about denying rights to terrorists, and then lie and deny when the
shit hits the fan. I guess as long as these morons continue to lie and cheat their way into power we deserve to have poisoned gulf seafood and the end of flowering crops.
Don't worry, you can just consume more high fructose processed food and get diabetes.
The corn/agribusiness lobby will continue to do just fine with their massive tax breaks and government subsidies, and they're so rich that they can afford imported fruits and vegetables. If you get sick the dysfunctional socialized medical care system can not save you, and that will solve them[sic] problem.
FCC chairman Julius Genachowski says that net neutrality rules 'will happen,' promising the FCC 'will make sure that we get the rules right... to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem.'
Just like software patents.
We have heard that story before and we know how it ends.
South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.
So charge a higher one-time fee to homeowners who want to pay for the service after their homes starts burning and a different, lower, periodic fee for those who want to pay in advance of a possible fire.
There is nothing wrong with a "fee for service" model for some services traditionally provided by local governments. What is wrong with this story is that the service providers refused to provide the service for a fee in an emergency. It's like refusing to sell a starving man food or a poisoned man antidote.
It is not like legislators and bureaucrats magically improve when they switch from regulating consumers to regulating industry. Government regulation of business is equally as idiotic as is its attempts to regulate individual citizens. Yet it is more pervasive because corporations make easier targets for politicians than your grandmother. Also, corporate regulation is less visible since it impinges on specific business and not the population as a whole.
People who advocate for more regulation of corporations should consider that the quality of the regulation which the government supplies is going to be the same quality as banning rotary phones. Even if in advocating for regulation you have some simple goal, such as compelling your ISP to charge you lower rates, what you are actually going to get is ineffective nonsense. Simple, traditional, transparent laws outlawing crimes such as embezzlement, murder, extortion, fraud and theft are necessary and sufficient whereas regulation is almost always a net disimprovement.
Michelle Obama has adapted a worthwhile initiative to reduce childhood obesity into a platform for broadcasting her snide disdain for the plebeian tastes of the common people. Her chart also indicts "The first successful shipping mall FOOD COURT [emphasis hers]". Mrs. Obama has deigned to enlighten the masses, disabusing us of our philistine taste in Playstations and food courts at the mall. Once imbued with her own degree of elegance and sophistication, we shall live as healthfully she, dining casually in bistros on the Spanish coast and in elegance upon the healthful hors d'oeuvres at White House receptions.
How does this compare with young people's enjoyment of negative vs. positive storeis about old people?
Granny fell down and broke her hip. Yay!
No, see, it does not work the other way around. Age envies youth but youth does not envy old age. Just as do the poor envy the wealthy but not the wealthy envy the poor.
Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban.
They'll have to work a lot harder to undo that one as long as the tea party is around.
Right, because opposing increased government spending and regulation is the same as murdering thousands of people by hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings. Criticize the Tea Party if you do not agree with it, but do not label it terrorist. I was in NYC on 9/11. You need to get some perspective, asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
Code reviews should be your lowest priority. They are the least efficient way of improving the quality of your software, in terms of hours invested vs. improvement in user experience. You are way better off entering feedback from actual customers, testers and UI designers, into an issue tracking system, prioritizing the issues, and working them down in order or priority.
Some supporters of code reviews advocate that they be run as a background task, during what is otherwise programmer idle time. If you are going to do them, that's probably the right way.
You can do good code reviews all day long and your software can remain unusable junk. You need to close the loop, examine how the the actual software works in the field and feed that back into work on the source code. Code reviews short-circuit the process by ignoring the actual performance of the software, instead using the quality of the source code as the measure of correctness. Users don't care about the correctness of your source code as gauged by comparison to a specification. They care about whether the software does stuff that they want it to do and is easy to use.
Code reviews are sometimes only a way for managers to cover their assess. In many organizations managerial competence is defined as adherence to procedures as documented by completed forms. When something blows up, the only artifacts investigators concern themselves with are documents defining procedures and written records documenting that the procedures defined in those documents were followed. Intelligence, good judgement, and actually producing a usable product are irrelevant in such environments. Records of code reviews are an artifact that managers can point to demonstrating their success in following a procedure. Code reviews are really big in regulated environments and especially on government funded projects. Unlike business which needs to sell stuff to actual people to survive, government projects are not required to ever furnish usable products and often do not.
All that said, code reviews do have some advantages. Programmers learn a lot from looking at each other's code and sometimes you have to push them to do that. And it does catch bugs, though the work in finding those is not prioritized by their impact on users, as it should be and is if you prioritize according to user feedback. And if you need highly reliable code, then you need to employ every possible resource for finding bugs, not just the fastest and most efficient, and code reviews are another one of those tools in your kit and you should use them.
If you put Bill Gates, Vinod Khosla, and Sergey Brin & Larry Page in a room together it would be a massive love fest; From statements each has made independently it appears they are in close agreement on the subject energy. Bill Gates states the issue well. Compare to interviews with Khosla on the subject of his investment strategy and the google.org REC initiative.
People who gained wealth and fame by bringing improved technologies to market instinctively apply the same approach to energy. That is the Silicon Valley approach. In contrast, the energy policy emanating from Washington D.C. is a combination of vote buying using cash handouts to favored constituencies, e.g. corn ethanol subsidies, and using government coercion to extort cash payments from the public directly into the hands of the politicians, e.g. Al Gore's carbon offsets business.
Genuinely greener technologies do not require government handouts. In fact, it is the opposite, they are cash cows for private investors. That is because efficiency is inherently and simultaneously more green and more profitable than inefficiency. The higher the ratio of outputs the more you get for less. That means spending less money on inputs and impacting the environment less by consuming fewer inputs in production per unit of output.
Early UNIX Contributor Robert Morris Dead at 78
"Late UNIX Contributor Robert Morris Dead at 78"
There, fixed that for you.
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Well, to quote Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal (link):
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
She is an Obama appointee. And not his first.
if isCrony(judge){
if isRepublicanAppointee(judge)
blame(Repuplicans);
if isDemocratAppointee(judge)
blame(RevolvingDoors);
}
Seriously, this guy is about one step away from saving his urine in jars...
When a conservative saves his urine in jars it is not on the taxpayer's dime.
After thoroughly eradicating all trace of evidence, he then told someone else what he had done. Brilliant.
According to an article appearing in the online technology journal MicroScope.co.uk, here:
As this graph shows, regardless of the genre, sequels are usually worse than the original.
Eric Raymond presents a noteworthy analysis of the smartphone wars, here, in which he predicts Microsoft will fail in that market. Proceeding from the observation that the wireless broadband market has had negative profitably for the previous ten years:
Of course the same logic applies to a Windows 8 phone.
The test has an odd kind of validity; The foolish who choose Internet Explorer (instead of Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera) would be also the foolish victims of "Socially Engineered Malware". That is, the web browser for dupes protects its users from the same vulnerability which causes them to use it.
In light of the fact that clothiandidin was approved under not a Republican but Democratic President and Congress the grandparent post could be modified accordingly:
One more example of how Obama and his greedy incompetent Democrat asshats have screwed everybody. This stuff is used because of a regulatory approval that was granted in 2010, against the scientific advices of the experts.
It's just like Obama's handling of the BP Gulf oil spill and the coal mine explosion in West Virginia. There are systems in place to protect people and the environment, but when the Democrats gain control they selectively revoke oversight in return for campaign donations and other political favors. It takes five to fifteen years to see all the failures, and by then everyone forgets who turned over control to the crooks and lairs.
They just wave the flag, blame everything on the free market and greedy capitalists, scream about denying rights to terrorists, and then lie and deny when the
shit hits the fan. I guess as long as these morons continue to lie and cheat their way into power we deserve to have poisoned gulf seafood and the end of flowering crops.
Don't worry, you can just consume more high fructose processed food and get diabetes.
The corn/agribusiness lobby will continue to do just fine with their massive tax breaks and government subsidies, and they're so rich that they can afford imported fruits and vegetables. If you get sick the dysfunctional socialized medical care system can not save you, and that will solve them[sic] problem.
Just like software patents.
We have heard that story before and we know how it ends.
from the article summary:
"Look out, the battle of the dwarf planets is about to re-ignite! During last weekend's rare occultation of a star by Eris.
from the parent post:
Fuck you... allow me to elaborate.
from wikipedia
Eris is named after the Greek goddess Eris (Greek ), a personification of strife and discord.
Have you actually READ the heathcare bill/law?
If you want to read it you can get it here
So charge a higher one-time fee to homeowners who want to pay for the service after their homes starts burning and a different, lower, periodic fee for those who want to pay in advance of a possible fire.
There is nothing wrong with a "fee for service" model for some services traditionally provided by local governments. What is wrong with this story is that the service providers refused to provide the service for a fee in an emergency. It's like refusing to sell a starving man food or a poisoned man antidote.
Because the alarm systems are clearly worthless the cost of the damage to them must be $0.00 at most.
It is not like legislators and bureaucrats magically improve when they switch from regulating consumers to regulating industry. Government regulation of business is equally as idiotic as is its attempts to regulate individual citizens. Yet it is more pervasive because corporations make easier targets for politicians than your grandmother. Also, corporate regulation is less visible since it impinges on specific business and not the population as a whole.
People who advocate for more regulation of corporations should consider that the quality of the regulation which the government supplies is going to be the same quality as banning rotary phones. Even if in advocating for regulation you have some simple goal, such as compelling your ISP to charge you lower rates, what you are actually going to get is ineffective nonsense. Simple, traditional, transparent laws outlawing crimes such as embezzlement, murder, extortion, fraud and theft are necessary and sufficient whereas regulation is almost always a net disimprovement.
What if he was from here.
Michelle Obama has adapted a worthwhile initiative to reduce childhood obesity into a platform for broadcasting her snide disdain for the plebeian tastes of the common people. Her chart also indicts "The first successful shipping mall FOOD COURT [emphasis hers]". Mrs. Obama has deigned to enlighten the masses, disabusing us of our philistine taste in Playstations and food courts at the mall. Once imbued with her own degree of elegance and sophistication, we shall live as healthfully she, dining casually in bistros on the Spanish coast and in elegance upon the healthful hors d'oeuvres at White House receptions.
...We all have a limited amount of time and attention, there is no sense wasting a limited resource on trivial things.
So then why are you posting on slashdot?
How does this compare with young people's enjoyment of negative vs. positive storeis about old people?
Granny fell down and broke her hip. Yay!
No, see, it does not work the other way around. Age envies youth but youth does not envy old age. Just as do the poor envy the wealthy but not the wealthy envy the poor.
The works of Plato and Xenophon are direct evidence.
Also this video.
Now you understand how Right-wingers feel at being labeled 'The American Taliban.
They'll have to work a lot harder to undo that one as long as the tea party is around.
Right, because opposing increased government spending and regulation is the same as murdering thousands of people by hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings. Criticize the Tea Party if you do not agree with it, but do not label it terrorist. I was in NYC on 9/11. You need to get some perspective, asshole.