"Every business - when it reaches a certain size - realizes that they need to have a fixed process for handling X..."
And shortly after that, they used to get out of money, and out of the market. Until, the last wave of company protection, that started at the middle of the XX century. Now those disfunctional things stay alive to threaten small companies and impede inovation on entire markets.
Option 3: Get some FOSS that does mostly what you want, and change it to fit perfectly into your needs. Advantajes are you pay the lowest price of the 3, you get software completely customized, if your people is competent enough you'll have very little code to maintain in house, you get most future updates, there are developers out of your company that understand the codebase. Disadvantajes are: it takes longer than option 2, but is still faster than option 1.
"Network cables are the province of networking, which is a completely separate department (answering up a completely different chain of command to one level down from the CEO)."
And here we see the difference between the academical and the real worlds. People solve the traveling salesman problem all the time at the real word. And yes, with exact solution. Of course, for that they need exponential time. If exponential time isn't available, they are ok with an approximation.
And that also exemplifies the "can't get it done" behaviour the article is complaining about. It is quite a fair request at this level of detail, it may become a bad request with more details, and it is the job of IT to gather those extra details, judge if it is viable and, if it isn't viable, to understand the actual problem and propose a viable way to solve it. Ok, maybe there isn't, sometimes the client is saking for strong AI or something alike, then it is the job of IT to specify what parts of the problem could be solved.
There is always somebody more powerfull than both the department that made the demand IT says is stupid and the person "in charge" of IT. If the demand (and that somebody) is really not stupid, just call him. He should not be willing to lose money because IT doesn't want a project.
But.... The only way the IT department can start working well is if the company starts sending that money to an outside contractor (that costs 10 times more), and makes the IT department compete with them for the money.
But I'd guess that on your simple world the IT department shares the objectives of the rest of the company, and the CEO can even arbitrate some problem between them and other departments. On that imaginary world the CEO may even be able to fire people from the IT department... Be aware that in the real world, things don't work like that, that is way the other departments must contract the cloud.
There can't be far more bitcoins in circulation than claimed. But it can quite well be a ponzi scheme, not with the amount of coins, but with their value. The only thing it needs to become a ponzi scheme is that most people buying it be buying with the intent of selling it with a highter value, not with the intent of buying something with it. If that is happening or not, I can't know.
"It's reasonable to doubt that C++ is faster than ASM"
Yep.
"it's reasonable to doubt that C++ is faster than C"
Why would it be? You can write C++ code that compiles into the same thing as normal C code, as you can write C code that compiles into the same thing as any variety of C++ one can think of.
"And if we're talking about hand tuned numerical libraries, it's reasonable to doubt that C++ is faster than FORTRAN"
Again, why so? you can do the same hand tunning at the C++ libraries. In fact, you can do even more, but for numerical libraries it shouldn't be any difference.
Yet we seem way more able to deal with rethoric (impressing girls) than with rationality (tool-making). Worse yet if the think we are ratitinating about isn't another human being.
Sexual selection doesn't happen in a vacuum, inteligence must have been important for survival when it begun, but sexual selection is also known to lead to extreme traits, even when those extremes actualy reduce the chances of survival.
"In general anything that has to do with people, is not possible to do in a strict scientific way, and are therefore not a natural science."
That statement is false. I quite agree that there are people that call themselves scientists, but in fact aren't. I'll not arguee about their distribution on different specialities (I don't know enough to do that)... But it is possible to study people on a scientific way. It is not always possible to come out with a conclusion, but even discovering that you can't conclude anything is science.
If software were just a component, companies wouldn't be doing what the GP complained about. That the GP complaint is real and well documented means that software is not "just" a component.
And computers also aren't "just" another tool. It is the tool of informatics, that is the art that is currently revolutionizing ourselves. Computers are "just" a tool the same way that reading is "just" a skill and critical tought is "just" a capability.
It is a problem. You are missreading it. But it isn't people hoarding money that causes it to be a problem.
Also, it seems that the central banks around the world were indeed acting on foolish goals for the last 50 years. That is getting quite clear now, that the consequences are appearing. But fighting deflation isn't one of those foolish goals. Maybe helping organize the economy in a way where deflation is a huge problem was foolish, but that I can't be sure.
The only problem is that they don't know how to "hire people who know what they're doing, then keep them around and include security in all stages of planning, development and operations." To be specific, they don't know how to do that "hire people who know what they're doing" on any big organization, on any kind of professional they want to hire.
Not that big organizations' managers are all bad, it is that hiring is HARD, and administration courses teach you should delegate that to people that don't understand what they are hiring for...
So, you agree that payments not going down is a problem. Ok. If you read up there on the thread you may notice that you were arguing that the problem of deflation was that people would hoard money. People just don't do that to a very important degree, and proof of that is that they even pay interest to get things earlier.
Now, payments don't going down is a problem. Surely. That was just my point.
A multi-plataform Microsoft is the end of every Microsoft thing we have today. Fanboys are quite right to be afraid.
Also, the developers will take another hit... It seems that every decade MS makes their old developers' jobs go away, and create a shinning new technology that only inexperient developers will care to learn. Somehow, that doesn't hurt Microsoft's botton line, altough it severely hurts their image.
"Why should I buy a car now, when I get it in 6 months significantly cheaper?"
Because you need one? Why do people take loans to pay for cars and houses, instead of just waiting a bit and paying much less?
"And why should the wages change?"
On a deflation there is less money to pay wages (and lower prices too), so all the people can't keep getting the same wage. It being that hard for our wage (not just wage, but all kinds of payments) go down is exactly what makes deflation hard to deal with.
In practice people don't hoard that much. It is easy to see why, people give a very hight value to trading, as they need the resulting stuff to eat, move from one place to the other, and other such things. People may (and do) hoard a bit more at the durables market, but even there it isn't as big a problem as your argument makes it sound.
The problem with deflation is that people are used to inflation. Thus we don't accept reduction on payments (any kind, salaries, renting, etc) well.
Slashdot Mirror
And shortly after that, they used to get out of money, and out of the market. Until, the last wave of company protection, that started at the middle of the XX century. Now those disfunctional things stay alive to threaten small companies and impede inovation on entire markets.
Option 3: Get some FOSS that does mostly what you want, and change it to fit perfectly into your needs. Advantajes are you pay the lowest price of the 3, you get software completely customized, if your people is competent enough you'll have very little code to maintain in house, you get most future updates, there are developers out of your company that understand the codebase. Disadvantajes are: it takes longer than option 2, but is still faster than option 1.
You'll plug the device they are writting the drivers for at that virtual computer?
Hey, there is your company's problem.
And here we see the difference between the academical and the real worlds. People solve the traveling salesman problem all the time at the real word. And yes, with exact solution. Of course, for that they need exponential time. If exponential time isn't available, they are ok with an approximation.
And that also exemplifies the "can't get it done" behaviour the article is complaining about. It is quite a fair request at this level of detail, it may become a bad request with more details, and it is the job of IT to gather those extra details, judge if it is viable and, if it isn't viable, to understand the actual problem and propose a viable way to solve it. Ok, maybe there isn't, sometimes the client is saking for strong AI or something alike, then it is the job of IT to specify what parts of the problem could be solved.
There is always somebody more powerfull than both the department that made the demand IT says is stupid and the person "in charge" of IT. If the demand (and that somebody) is really not stupid, just call him. He should not be willing to lose money because IT doesn't want a project.
But.... The only way the IT department can start working well is if the company starts sending that money to an outside contractor (that costs 10 times more), and makes the IT department compete with them for the money.
But I'd guess that on your simple world the IT department shares the objectives of the rest of the company, and the CEO can even arbitrate some problem between them and other departments. On that imaginary world the CEO may even be able to fire people from the IT department... Be aware that in the real world, things don't work like that, that is way the other departments must contract the cloud.
There can't be far more bitcoins in circulation than claimed. But it can quite well be a ponzi scheme, not with the amount of coins, but with their value. The only thing it needs to become a ponzi scheme is that most people buying it be buying with the intent of selling it with a highter value, not with the intent of buying something with it. If that is happening or not, I can't know.
That is right, I said it wrong. You'd have to replace malloc. I just wanted to say that you can do that.
Yep.
Why would it be? You can write C++ code that compiles into the same thing as normal C code, as you can write C code that compiles into the same thing as any variety of C++ one can think of.
Again, why so? you can do the same hand tunning at the C++ libraries. In fact, you can do even more, but for numerical libraries it shouldn't be any difference.
Only if you write those malloc statements wrong. The GC does nothing that you can't do with manual allocation, and the reverse is false.
Yet we seem way more able to deal with rethoric (impressing girls) than with rationality (tool-making). Worse yet if the think we are ratitinating about isn't another human being.
Sexual selection doesn't happen in a vacuum, inteligence must have been important for survival when it begun, but sexual selection is also known to lead to extreme traits, even when those extremes actualy reduce the chances of survival.
That statement is false. I quite agree that there are people that call themselves scientists, but in fact aren't. I'll not arguee about their distribution on different specialities (I don't know enough to do that)... But it is possible to study people on a scientific way. It is not always possible to come out with a conclusion, but even discovering that you can't conclude anything is science.
"Audiophile" is someone that likes audio. Not one that improves it.
Except for the fact that correlation doesn't imply causation, I would be able to agree with you. But in reality, I can't.
And telnet, and ncat. Those are probably the most used hacking tools.
Multi-billion dollar industry or not, faculty members still get pissy if you use their computers to play games (unless it was the assignment).
If software were just a component, companies wouldn't be doing what the GP complained about. That the GP complaint is real and well documented means that software is not "just" a component.
And computers also aren't "just" another tool. It is the tool of informatics, that is the art that is currently revolutionizing ourselves. Computers are "just" a tool the same way that reading is "just" a skill and critical tought is "just" a capability.
It is a problem. You are missreading it. But it isn't people hoarding money that causes it to be a problem.
Also, it seems that the central banks around the world were indeed acting on foolish goals for the last 50 years. That is getting quite clear now, that the consequences are appearing. But fighting deflation isn't one of those foolish goals. Maybe helping organize the economy in a way where deflation is a huge problem was foolish, but that I can't be sure.
The only problem is that they don't know how to "hire people who know what they're doing, then keep them around and include security in all stages of planning, development and operations." To be specific, they don't know how to do that "hire people who know what they're doing" on any big organization, on any kind of professional they want to hire.
Not that big organizations' managers are all bad, it is that hiring is HARD, and administration courses teach you should delegate that to people that don't understand what they are hiring for...
So, you agree that payments not going down is a problem. Ok. If you read up there on the thread you may notice that you were arguing that the problem of deflation was that people would hoard money. People just don't do that to a very important degree, and proof of that is that they even pay interest to get things earlier.
Now, payments don't going down is a problem. Surely. That was just my point.
A multi-plataform Microsoft is the end of every Microsoft thing we have today. Fanboys are quite right to be afraid.
Also, the developers will take another hit... It seems that every decade MS makes their old developers' jobs go away, and create a shinning new technology that only inexperient developers will care to learn. Somehow, that doesn't hurt Microsoft's botton line, altough it severely hurts their image.
So, the EG8 wants to stop people from quotating them and reading their ideas until they capitalize on those ideas? Still makes no sense.
The EG8 wants people to be unable to quote the ideas they want people to read? No, I still didn't get it...
Because you need one? Why do people take loans to pay for cars and houses, instead of just waiting a bit and paying much less?
On a deflation there is less money to pay wages (and lower prices too), so all the people can't keep getting the same wage. It being that hard for our wage (not just wage, but all kinds of payments) go down is exactly what makes deflation hard to deal with.
In practice people don't hoard that much. It is easy to see why, people give a very hight value to trading, as they need the resulting stuff to eat, move from one place to the other, and other such things. People may (and do) hoard a bit more at the durables market, but even there it isn't as big a problem as your argument makes it sound.
The problem with deflation is that people are used to inflation. Thus we don't accept reduction on payments (any kind, salaries, renting, etc) well.