That was my first thought, too. Reminds me of an old Steven Wright joke: "For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier...I put them in the same room and let them fight it out..."
So, in a sense, he was actually quite incorrect.
Gravity is a prerequisite to solar system and thus planetary formation, which in turn was requisite to the emergence of life as we know it.
Therefore, gravity did in fact effect him (and all of us), although in fairness it did so only once and no longer brings him into being.
-- L
Put the onus on someone else to fit it in, so they are clear on what the tradeoffs are going to be.
Exactly. I have found that emphasizing the increased risk associated with one or more of (decreasing alloted time/resources, increasing project scope, decreasing project cost/funds) is the most effective way of communicating to your customers (internal or external) the impact of their demands.
It's not that "It can't be done." It's that "If we constain it thus, the risks are very high, and here's what those risks are..."
Business customers are typically highly risk averse, and they usually respond to this very well.
This is my experience as a Project Manager (PMP).
-- L
I find this kind of stuff at least annoying and at most repulsive.
But let's all remember that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head and making them use this stuff. It's up to companies to protect their own IP however they see fit, and it's up to consumers to feel free to try to find ways around it (DMCA be damned).
No you go on and do what you want to...
-- L
Slashdot Mirror
it'd be funny if you ran it alongside Adblock.
That was my first thought, too. Reminds me of an old Steven Wright joke: "For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier...I put them in the same room and let them fight it out..."
So, in a sense, he was actually quite incorrect. Gravity is a prerequisite to solar system and thus planetary formation, which in turn was requisite to the emergence of life as we know it. Therefore, gravity did in fact effect him (and all of us), although in fairness it did so only once and no longer brings him into being. -- L
remember this article: "Could tobacco save your life?"?
-- L
Put the onus on someone else to fit it in, so they are clear on what the tradeoffs are going to be. Exactly. I have found that emphasizing the increased risk associated with one or more of (decreasing alloted time/resources, increasing project scope, decreasing project cost/funds) is the most effective way of communicating to your customers (internal or external) the impact of their demands. It's not that "It can't be done." It's that "If we constain it thus, the risks are very high, and here's what those risks are ..."
Business customers are typically highly risk averse, and they usually respond to this very well.
This is my experience as a Project Manager (PMP).
-- L
I find this kind of stuff at least annoying and at most repulsive. But let's all remember that no one is putting a gun to anyone's head and making them use this stuff. It's up to companies to protect their own IP however they see fit, and it's up to consumers to feel free to try to find ways around it (DMCA be damned). No you go on and do what you want to... -- L
You are right; people here are missing the real point, and that is that
companies protecting their IP using technology is good
companies protecting their IP using government (regulations, legislation, litigation) is badCompanies/people oughta be free to protect their stuff however they like, so long as we're all free to try to circumvent it however we like.
-- LJohn Allen Paulos -- L