The definition of "industry best practice" is what everybody else is doing, or to use another word, mediocrity. There's situations in which reliable mediocre results are desirable, but if the important stuff in the company is strictly best practices, I don't want to buy its stock.
I have never understood the point of Scrum. Every place I was at that used that had at least 2-3 hour stand up meetings.
I'm not trying to do a No True Scotsman here, but standups over fifteen minutes or so aren't part of Scrum. I don't know if I've been involved in proper Scrum, but the standups I've been in have been twenty minutes or less. Having had at least some Scrum experience, I have to agree with you in wondering how anybody is expected to get work done under those circumstance.
In the standups I've been in, everybody says what they did towards the goal since the last standup, what they're going to do next, and what problems they've got holding them up, not in detail. Other stuff, and more details, should be handled outside the standup. If this takes much more than fifteen minutes, ur doin it rong.
I think the take-away lesson here is that people can abuse any methodology to the point where it's hard to get any work done.
Management memo: As long as productivity is down 50%, we will continue to have the four-hour daily meetings to discuss the problem.
But done right, both ITIL and ISO 9000 give you one thing: predictable, repeatable output.
I'm a software developer. Predictable and repeatable output would have to be crap output, with measures taken to make sure I never perform better than my current worst weeks.
The ACA individual mandate was allowed as a tax by the Supreme Court, not under the Interstate Commerce clause.
I do agree about the drug laws. Nobody's ever pointed me at any part of the Constitution that says that enforcing drug laws inside a state is a Federal concern.
The problem with "platform specific behavior" is that it implies that you can count on uniformity across a platform. It's more like "implementation-defined behavior", which is guaranteed to be uniform across a platform, and is in the Standard.
In practice, there's been a considerable convergence of processors since C was designed. Particularly when dealing with computational devices that people use, it's pretty darn safe to assume twos-magnitude notation with wraparound on signed arithmetic overflow.
I don't think it was a matter of memory. Even back then, two bytes in a record wouldn't increase its size too much. I think it was a matter of punch cards. In memory, the difference between a 79-byte and an 81-byte record is about 3%, but the difference between those records on punch cards is requiring one or two punch cards per record, which is a really big deal.
Sure. I'd suspect a data type (maybe "long") that compiled to 32 bits on a 32-bit machine and 64 bits on a 64-bit machine. Such data types are usable for purely internal processing, but a number that exists outside the program really should have an exact bit length.
Another problem with compiling as "long" is that binary file formats aren't necessarily compatible. It took me a couple of days once to track down a case where a file had been produced on a 32-bit computer and read on a 64-bit one without the use of a explicitly defined size for one variable.
I'd expect the number of 16-bit words out there to be much less than 90%. Last I looked, 8-bit computers were still in heavy use in cheap embedded systems. Machines usable as computers of some sort tend to have 32-bit and 64-bit words.
The US Constitution places few limits on electors, saying that they will be selected as the state decides. Most states choose them according to which Presidential candidate gets the plurality of votes in that state. I think two subdivide it further.
Many states have laws prescribing who the electors have to vote for. I don't think any of these laws have been tested in court, and I think them of at best questionable constitutionality.
And, yes, it's pointless. It was originally set up to give slave states more influence in who became President, and in the hope that the electors would actually use some judgment. Neither is applicable nowadays.
The eternal cry of the Trump supporter: "He was just joking!" whenever he says something embarrassing. Apparently, there's no way to tell whether he was serious or not when he said something.
If Trump wants to look innocent of impeachable crimes, he needs to either divest himself of his business holdings, or become a lot more transparent. Any money he accepts from a foreign government without consent of Congress is unconstitutional, as is any money he accepts from any government in the US aside from the compensation specified by law. I don't have proof that he has violated an emoluments clause, but it seems awfully likely.
In other words, you know some marks in the con game Trump runs. The people in the rust belt have legitimate complaints. I don't think many of them have addressed their problems well, but that's really none of my business. Believing that Trump would was a very serious mistake. Heck, believing anything Trump says on the basis that he says it is a serious mistake.
The DNC is not a government organization. It is a private organization, and one of its jobs is to nominate a good candidate for President. They decided, and I still agree, that Clinton was more electable than Sanders (I supported Sanders to try to move the party to the left, not because I thought he'd be the stronger candidate).
Sanders is not a Democrat. He is a self-described socialist. You may have noticed that various people on Slashdot equate anything described as socialism* with Stalin's or Mao's rule. The Republican mud-slinging brigade would have had a field day with that. The DNC was correct to take this into account.
*"Socialism" really doesn't have much of a defined meaning any more. It used to be the direct or indirect ownership and/or control of the means of production by the people, which, as it turns out, is not a very good idea. It then started to be used to describe people interested in social welfare, which is what Sanders means by it.
If the "resist" movement didn't accept Trump's win, they'd all go home. They're still against Trump, which is still legal in this country, and they're trying to stop some of the things he and other Republicans are doing. There is absolutely nothing sinister about this. It's part of political influence and lobbying.
We didn't need Russians for that. Comey affected the election by bringing up the email server in the last days of the campaign, even though he didn't have anything new.
In 2003, lots of people were convinced that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons, and was on the verge of using them, because that was the bulk of the information available, and one reason for that was that the Bush administration was controlling much of the information to set up an attack. Some intelligent and informed people I know thought that the invasion was necessary. Given the bad information going around, I'm not blaming any member of Congress for voting for the invasion of Iraq. I blame the Bush administration for setting up the misleading information and for botching the occupation.
We know a lot more about security than some voting machines use, yes. However, given that the precinct totals are summed, it isn't necessary to hack all the voting machines to change the results of a close election.
Different places have different voting systems. I'm happy that Virginia's voting is pretty secure (so is ours in Minnesota), but some places still use easily hackable machines.
Ever hear of the clause that gives Congress authority to tax and spend for the general welfare, without further restrictions? The Constitution specifically authorizes Federal spending on assisting poor people, providing health care, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The definition of "industry best practice" is what everybody else is doing, or to use another word, mediocrity. There's situations in which reliable mediocre results are desirable, but if the important stuff in the company is strictly best practices, I don't want to buy its stock.
I'm not trying to do a No True Scotsman here, but standups over fifteen minutes or so aren't part of Scrum. I don't know if I've been involved in proper Scrum, but the standups I've been in have been twenty minutes or less. Having had at least some Scrum experience, I have to agree with you in wondering how anybody is expected to get work done under those circumstance.
In the standups I've been in, everybody says what they did towards the goal since the last standup, what they're going to do next, and what problems they've got holding them up, not in detail. Other stuff, and more details, should be handled outside the standup. If this takes much more than fifteen minutes, ur doin it rong.
I think the take-away lesson here is that people can abuse any methodology to the point where it's hard to get any work done.
Management memo: As long as productivity is down 50%, we will continue to have the four-hour daily meetings to discuss the problem.
A friend of mine told me that ISO 9000 could apply to software development.
February: Inspector comes in, talks to some developer, is told that new software is put in a pan of 70F water for half an hour to remove bugs.
September: Inspector walks up to your desk and without further ado demands to see your pan, thermometer, and timer.
I'm a software developer. Predictable and repeatable output would have to be crap output, with measures taken to make sure I never perform better than my current worst weeks.
The ACA individual mandate was allowed as a tax by the Supreme Court, not under the Interstate Commerce clause.
I do agree about the drug laws. Nobody's ever pointed me at any part of the Constitution that says that enforcing drug laws inside a state is a Federal concern.
A 64-bit system won't help with a variable declared int32_t. It is likely to with a variable declared long.
I'm sure that, if it came up, Putin could show pictures of himself playing chess, probably without a shirt on.
The problem with "platform specific behavior" is that it implies that you can count on uniformity across a platform. It's more like "implementation-defined behavior", which is guaranteed to be uniform across a platform, and is in the Standard.
In practice, there's been a considerable convergence of processors since C was designed. Particularly when dealing with computational devices that people use, it's pretty darn safe to assume twos-magnitude notation with wraparound on signed arithmetic overflow.
I don't think it was a matter of memory. Even back then, two bytes in a record wouldn't increase its size too much. I think it was a matter of punch cards. In memory, the difference between a 79-byte and an 81-byte record is about 3%, but the difference between those records on punch cards is requiring one or two punch cards per record, which is a really big deal.
Sure. I'd suspect a data type (maybe "long") that compiled to 32 bits on a 32-bit machine and 64 bits on a 64-bit machine. Such data types are usable for purely internal processing, but a number that exists outside the program really should have an exact bit length.
Another problem with compiling as "long" is that binary file formats aren't necessarily compatible. It took me a couple of days once to track down a case where a file had been produced on a 32-bit computer and read on a 64-bit one without the use of a explicitly defined size for one variable.
I'd expect the number of 16-bit words out there to be much less than 90%. Last I looked, 8-bit computers were still in heavy use in cheap embedded systems. Machines usable as computers of some sort tend to have 32-bit and 64-bit words.
The US Constitution places few limits on electors, saying that they will be selected as the state decides. Most states choose them according to which Presidential candidate gets the plurality of votes in that state. I think two subdivide it further.
Many states have laws prescribing who the electors have to vote for. I don't think any of these laws have been tested in court, and I think them of at best questionable constitutionality.
And, yes, it's pointless. It was originally set up to give slave states more influence in who became President, and in the hope that the electors would actually use some judgment. Neither is applicable nowadays.
The eternal cry of the Trump supporter: "He was just joking!" whenever he says something embarrassing. Apparently, there's no way to tell whether he was serious or not when he said something.
If Trump wants to look innocent of impeachable crimes, he needs to either divest himself of his business holdings, or become a lot more transparent. Any money he accepts from a foreign government without consent of Congress is unconstitutional, as is any money he accepts from any government in the US aside from the compensation specified by law. I don't have proof that he has violated an emoluments clause, but it seems awfully likely.
In other words, you know some marks in the con game Trump runs. The people in the rust belt have legitimate complaints. I don't think many of them have addressed their problems well, but that's really none of my business. Believing that Trump would was a very serious mistake. Heck, believing anything Trump says on the basis that he says it is a serious mistake.
The DNC is not a government organization. It is a private organization, and one of its jobs is to nominate a good candidate for President. They decided, and I still agree, that Clinton was more electable than Sanders (I supported Sanders to try to move the party to the left, not because I thought he'd be the stronger candidate).
Sanders is not a Democrat. He is a self-described socialist. You may have noticed that various people on Slashdot equate anything described as socialism* with Stalin's or Mao's rule. The Republican mud-slinging brigade would have had a field day with that. The DNC was correct to take this into account.
*"Socialism" really doesn't have much of a defined meaning any more. It used to be the direct or indirect ownership and/or control of the means of production by the people, which, as it turns out, is not a very good idea. It then started to be used to describe people interested in social welfare, which is what Sanders means by it.
If the "resist" movement didn't accept Trump's win, they'd all go home. They're still against Trump, which is still legal in this country, and they're trying to stop some of the things he and other Republicans are doing. There is absolutely nothing sinister about this. It's part of political influence and lobbying.
Yup, they have no opportunity to laugh at the Republican Congress that denied Clinton's request for adequate funding for security.
We didn't need Russians for that. Comey affected the election by bringing up the email server in the last days of the campaign, even though he didn't have anything new.
In 2003, lots of people were convinced that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons, and was on the verge of using them, because that was the bulk of the information available, and one reason for that was that the Bush administration was controlling much of the information to set up an attack. Some intelligent and informed people I know thought that the invasion was necessary. Given the bad information going around, I'm not blaming any member of Congress for voting for the invasion of Iraq. I blame the Bush administration for setting up the misleading information and for botching the occupation.
We know a lot more about security than some voting machines use, yes. However, given that the precinct totals are summed, it isn't necessary to hack all the voting machines to change the results of a close election.
Different places have different voting systems. I'm happy that Virginia's voting is pretty secure (so is ours in Minnesota), but some places still use easily hackable machines.
Ever hear of the clause that gives Congress authority to tax and spend for the general welfare, without further restrictions? The Constitution specifically authorizes Federal spending on assisting poor people, providing health care, etc.