I can find successful Agile projects. I can't find an example of successful Communism bigger than a few thousand people or longer than a generation that actually works (and that tends to require a charismatic leader). I've concluded that Communism doesn't work with actual human beings. (It might be a superb system for a hitherto undiscovered form of intelligent life.) I've concluded that Agile can work very well.
Because you don't just hop into a meeting and back out without it disrupting what's most likely your most productive part of the day. You also don't go back into coding full tilt after a 15 minute interruption.
I've normally got things to do that require a lot of concentration, and things that don't. If I know that the standup is at 9:45 every morning, I don't start anything that requires concentration before then. At 10, I can start concentrating. If it's on a fixed schedule, people can work around it effectively. If it changes from day to day, or, worse, is unpredictable, it will screw things up.
When you have a daily stand-up meeting that can take six hours while the Scrum master chastises, badgers, yells, and excoriates people, one by one, for not making deliverables.
This is not evidence that Scrum doesn't work, in much the same way that unrestricted cowboy coding isn't evidence that Waterfall doesn't work. This is evidence that people can do all sorts of stupid things and call it something else.
I've seen Scrum done right, and it worked great. The people involved were also great, so, to be honest, I don't know if it would have gone as well with other methodologies.
It's fairly simple in concept. Executing this concept is left as an exercise for the reader.
Design a piece of software. Make sure it fills a need. If it fills a need for you, that's a start.
Get something out there that works and does something useful, using some sort of F/OS license. Put it on Github or somewhere like that, so people can find it and contribute code and documentation.
Get people to use it, and incorporate their fixes and additions.
Get some momentum going, and aim to make the software very good at what it does. Make it more popular.
"Lambda" is a name with a long history. Back in the 1950s, John McCarthy came up with a language called LISP, that was partly based on Alonzo Church's Lambda Calculus. Lisp was a different approach at programming languages back then. FORTRAN was designed to compile to fast code, code that could compete with assembler for speed, while Lisp implemented programming principles at the cost of speed. For that reason, a lot of computer language development for decades was taking ideas from Lisp and implementing them in a language with a real syntax. Hence "lambda".
What sort of reasonably modern languages aren't parsable by Bison? I'd think that a language without a context-free grammar would be likely to be confusing to humans and difficult to write tools for.
What it means is that there is inequality of opportunity. One individual will not have the same opportunity as another due to sex or race. I picked the example because it was well-documented, not because it was major.
I'd suggest that it isn't your politics that turn people off so much as your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs. The Civil Rights Act did indeed make society more fair. There are other examples. You supply no empirical evidence to support your belief.
In fact, redlining was mandated by the National Housing Act of 1934
Which had no reference to geography, except that S&Ls insured under FSLIC were restricted in issuing mortgages to property over fifty miles from their principle place of business. That isn't redlining. Try again, and remember that I'm perfectly capable of following up references and checking on them.
Fortunately, it turns out that upholding freedom of association also tends to lead to the best outcomes for minorities.
A very sweeping statement. Got any empirical support for it?
Oppressing a well-armed population is easier in some ways. It's easier to shoot an armed person than an unarmed person.
Nor would it be a war. It would be isolated actions, since you can't get the population as a whole to do anything in particular. The authorities wouldn't necessarily come in shooting, but they'd win on their own schedule.
The fact that people want to lawlessly and casually infringe Constitutional rights is more than reason enough to have an AR-15
It is literally impossible for me to deprive you of your Constitutional rights. I'm not working for any government. If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.
The police are told that there's a hostage situation. Why would the hostage-taker come out and get shot, when it's just as easy to send a hostage? The information clearly implied that there were innocent victims there.
What are we arguing about? Ascertainable facts, actually. The FCC mandated Net Neutrality for quite a few years. The Supreme Court decided that they did not have the right to do that, given how they classified the ISPs. The FCC then changed the classification of ISPs (to Title II, I believe) so that it could continue to enforce Net Neutrality. That is a technical legal issue, divorced from practicality, and it's the thing that happened in the Obama administration.
Please read up on this before you post again. You'll look much more intelligent.
An actual liberal recognizes that we live in an imperfect society, and that compromises have to be made. Not all good principles can be upheld at all times.
You seem to have completely missed the history of racial discrimination in the US. It didn't go away when laws were abolished. It exists today. When faced with anti-discrimination laws on mortgages, for example, financial institutions resorted to "red-lining" to avoid making loans to blacks. Your beliefs seem to be based on politics rather than reality.
Society is always imperfect. It is also always unfair.
That was my point. Another part of my point is that I want it to be more fair. Do you, or are you content with leaving injustice there as long as you're comfortable with it?
Where exactly are there documented differences in opportunities based on gender or race? Specifically which government laws discriminate based on gender or race?
You do realize that those are two different questions, I hope. To give a minor but well-documented example of differences in opportunities, researchers have sent out resumes to employers and varied the names on them, including traditional male, traditional female, black-sounding names, things like that. They found that resumes sent with names that look like they belong to white males got responses more often than ones with female-looking or black-looking names. That is not equality of opportunity.
Okay, so insults don't count as long as you politically disagree with them? They've been through a horrifying experience, and I suspect few of us can understand how they feel. They're saying there's a problem. They aren't providing a solution, partly because approximately nobody on the pro-gun side is willing to be civil and reasonable. They have just as much right to a soapbox as you or me.
It varies a lot. There are lots of public school systems in the country, each typically has a lot of semi-independent districts, and districts generally have better and worse schools. My son got an excellent education in the public school system. There are schools you can go through and learn nothing.
There's sound reasons to think they're employees, and sound reasons to think they're contractors. The fact that they can't set their own prices for their tasks indicates that they're employees, and the fact that the drivers set their own hours (when and how many) indicates that they're contractors. The judge had to make a decision, and no decision was going to be perfect.
The other reason is that the driver was not paying attention when on a stretch of road he knew the autopilot didn't handle properly. Keeping the car from crashing is the driver's responsibility, no matter how much automation is involved.
They didn't pay attention to user feedback for WIndows 8 either. Apparently, producing something more compatible with Windows Phone trumped people who merely wanted to get stuff done.
Slashdot Mirror
I can find successful Agile projects. I can't find an example of successful Communism bigger than a few thousand people or longer than a generation that actually works (and that tends to require a charismatic leader). I've concluded that Communism doesn't work with actual human beings. (It might be a superb system for a hitherto undiscovered form of intelligent life.) I've concluded that Agile can work very well.
I've normally got things to do that require a lot of concentration, and things that don't. If I know that the standup is at 9:45 every morning, I don't start anything that requires concentration before then. At 10, I can start concentrating. If it's on a fixed schedule, people can work around it effectively. If it changes from day to day, or, worse, is unpredictable, it will screw things up.
This is not evidence that Scrum doesn't work, in much the same way that unrestricted cowboy coding isn't evidence that Waterfall doesn't work. This is evidence that people can do all sorts of stupid things and call it something else.
I've seen Scrum done right, and it worked great. The people involved were also great, so, to be honest, I don't know if it would have gone as well with other methodologies.
It's fairly simple in concept. Executing this concept is left as an exercise for the reader.
Design a piece of software. Make sure it fills a need. If it fills a need for you, that's a start.
Get something out there that works and does something useful, using some sort of F/OS license. Put it on Github or somewhere like that, so people can find it and contribute code and documentation.
Get people to use it, and incorporate their fixes and additions.
Get some momentum going, and aim to make the software very good at what it does. Make it more popular.
???
Profit!
I'm having flashbacks to PL/1, which was IBM's idea for combining FORTRAN, COBOL, and ALGOL. It was not a tremendous success.
"Lambda" is a name with a long history. Back in the 1950s, John McCarthy came up with a language called LISP, that was partly based on Alonzo Church's Lambda Calculus. Lisp was a different approach at programming languages back then. FORTRAN was designed to compile to fast code, code that could compete with assembler for speed, while Lisp implemented programming principles at the cost of speed. For that reason, a lot of computer language development for decades was taking ideas from Lisp and implementing them in a language with a real syntax. Hence "lambda".
What sort of reasonably modern languages aren't parsable by Bison? I'd think that a language without a context-free grammar would be likely to be confusing to humans and difficult to write tools for.
What it means is that there is inequality of opportunity. One individual will not have the same opportunity as another due to sex or race. I picked the example because it was well-documented, not because it was major.
I'd suggest that it isn't your politics that turn people off so much as your doctrinaire near-religious beliefs. The Civil Rights Act did indeed make society more fair. There are other examples. You supply no empirical evidence to support your belief.
Which had no reference to geography, except that S&Ls insured under FSLIC were restricted in issuing mortgages to property over fifty miles from their principle place of business. That isn't redlining. Try again, and remember that I'm perfectly capable of following up references and checking on them.
A very sweeping statement. Got any empirical support for it?
Oppressing a well-armed population is easier in some ways. It's easier to shoot an armed person than an unarmed person.
Nor would it be a war. It would be isolated actions, since you can't get the population as a whole to do anything in particular. The authorities wouldn't necessarily come in shooting, but they'd win on their own schedule.
Most mentally ill people are no danger to other people. This clown was.
It is literally impossible for me to deprive you of your Constitutional rights. I'm not working for any government. If agents of the government wanted to violate your Constitutional rights, the AR-15 isn't going to be of any more use than a stick of chewing gum.
So? He's a distance away, and draws a knife. Yell at him "Stop and drop the weapon or I'll shoot!" Just make sure it's an exclusive or.
Not to mention that it's likely that a hostage-taker would make a hostage answer the door.
The police are told that there's a hostage situation. Why would the hostage-taker come out and get shot, when it's just as easy to send a hostage? The information clearly implied that there were innocent victims there.
What are we arguing about? Ascertainable facts, actually. The FCC mandated Net Neutrality for quite a few years. The Supreme Court decided that they did not have the right to do that, given how they classified the ISPs. The FCC then changed the classification of ISPs (to Title II, I believe) so that it could continue to enforce Net Neutrality. That is a technical legal issue, divorced from practicality, and it's the thing that happened in the Obama administration.
Please read up on this before you post again. You'll look much more intelligent.
An actual liberal recognizes that we live in an imperfect society, and that compromises have to be made. Not all good principles can be upheld at all times.
You seem to have completely missed the history of racial discrimination in the US. It didn't go away when laws were abolished. It exists today. When faced with anti-discrimination laws on mortgages, for example, financial institutions resorted to "red-lining" to avoid making loans to blacks. Your beliefs seem to be based on politics rather than reality.
That was my point. Another part of my point is that I want it to be more fair. Do you, or are you content with leaving injustice there as long as you're comfortable with it?
You do realize that those are two different questions, I hope. To give a minor but well-documented example of differences in opportunities, researchers have sent out resumes to employers and varied the names on them, including traditional male, traditional female, black-sounding names, things like that. They found that resumes sent with names that look like they belong to white males got responses more often than ones with female-looking or black-looking names. That is not equality of opportunity.
Okay, so insults don't count as long as you politically disagree with them? They've been through a horrifying experience, and I suspect few of us can understand how they feel. They're saying there's a problem. They aren't providing a solution, partly because approximately nobody on the pro-gun side is willing to be civil and reasonable. They have just as much right to a soapbox as you or me.
It varies a lot. There are lots of public school systems in the country, each typically has a lot of semi-independent districts, and districts generally have better and worse schools. My son got an excellent education in the public school system. There are schools you can go through and learn nothing.
There's sound reasons to think they're employees, and sound reasons to think they're contractors. The fact that they can't set their own prices for their tasks indicates that they're employees, and the fact that the drivers set their own hours (when and how many) indicates that they're contractors. The judge had to make a decision, and no decision was going to be perfect.
The other reason is that the driver was not paying attention when on a stretch of road he knew the autopilot didn't handle properly. Keeping the car from crashing is the driver's responsibility, no matter how much automation is involved.
I have a high IQ, and I don't think I'm a particularly good driver. I got my latest car with all the safety features I could get, and I leave them on.
And, if they haven't hired Jadis of Charn, why not? She's got the right attitude to make high-level decisions at Microsoft.
They didn't pay attention to user feedback for WIndows 8 either. Apparently, producing something more compatible with Windows Phone trumped people who merely wanted to get stuff done.