but being informed on actuarial terms is not my business
Then you'd better have some damn good and damn accommodating domain experts.
An analyst's job is to understand the business rules and figure out how they can be sanely implemented in an IT solution. (Or, more importantly, when they can't.) And unfortunately, that sometimes means learning the jargon.
That's why my general (25-year) experience says that the best analysts are, first and formemost, generalists: capable of quickly absorbing the rudiments of any computable field of human endeavor. If you're doing the systems engineering for an accountancy, you'd better learn the fundamentals of accounting. Automating medical records? Learn medical recordkeeping. Weather forecasting? Heh. I could pass for a forecaster now, in casual conversation, because I've worked on weather data-gathering and forecasting systems so long.
Obviously, you are one of those quick-study generalists I spoke of, because of the breadth of (successful, I presume) systems you've helped implement.
That just leaves the problem of customers who don't actually know what they do, at least in enough clarity and specificity to implement as software. That's just a matter of patience and iteration. Prototyping can be helpful here, if you have time. Otherwise, I guess you just have to sigh and assume your first cut will be wrong.
Interesting. I was sceptical but you appear to be fundamentally right.
Per the South Carolina Constitution, Article VI, Section 2:
No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Weird. I'm amazed this hasn't been successfully challenged in the US Supreme Court yet. (I can't claim to be amazed that it hasn't been amended from within the state yet; in many states of the U.S., you'd have a hard time getting together enough of the population to support an atheism- or polytheism-friendly or religiously neurtral platform.)
Your bad experience with Ubuntu... is your experience alone.
I've had vastly fewer problems (and NO boot option tweaking) with Kubuntu Edgy than with RH9 and FC4. And on more "problematic" hardware (laptops, Frankenstein servers with bizarro interface cards..).
That's the real problem. Until they look, the computer is in a superpositon of being and not being a quantum processor. They're afraid to look, lest its probability field collapse into an eigenstate of "just marketing hype."
Or have we forgotten about SQL Slammer, which used a UDP vector?
Unless, with appropriate hand-waving, we are no longer talking about connections patterns and switching the discussion to packet-destination patterns. Which opens up other UDP-based legitimate applications to pre-emptive blockage. Imagine your lag rage when your antivirus whacks your MMO session.
They probably spend at the absolute most a month outside of human contact at sea.
Not in the U. S. Navy's submarine service. The operating cycle of an Ohio-class ballistic missile sub appears to be 112 days, of which 74 are at sea and 38 days are in-port refit (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/1999/newssbn.htm). On that 2 1/2 month deterrent patrol, a Trident boomer won't surface, let alone put into port.
So at least in the boomer service, submarine crews spend a looong time away from anyone but each other.
What if I have rolling papers, and a pouch of tobacco?
What if you have a water pipe, and a pouch of tobacco? Oh, that's right, in many jurisdictions, you can't have a water pipe. Those are "paraphernalia".
In many legal contexts, the idea of "non-infringing uses" has been systematically ignored so long it practically doesn't matter.
And that's a damn good point. The FSF is not copyright holder (and therefore doesn't have any practical leverage) over the Linux kernel. However, the toolchain, the libraries, and most of the command line utilities are from our friends at GNU. So there's a hook. I just don't know if it practically matters.
Assume the following:
The kernel continues to be GPL2.
Everything from the FSF gets licensed under the most aggressive form of GPL3
???
Can Novell profit? Can the FSF assert some prohibition that guts Novell's distro?
I don't know. IANAL. If Novell distributes the FSF goodies verbatim, and doesn't tailor them at all to accomodate the distro... the only thing I hook I can see is linking to FSF libraries in software which incorporates protected IP that Novell gains access to via this Novell/Microsoft deal. That, I could imagine. Other than that... What's Novell's risk?
Especially if it's software that enables random people to schedule them into time-wasting meetings at a click of a button.
Ah. I'm glad someone has a grasp of the true business need.
The fact that you don't approve, is both an indication that you're sane, and that a sign that your opinion is not relevant to the business case. Exchange compatibility is a non-negotiable, non-finesseable, titanium-clad, gotta-have-it-no-kidding, requirement. And it's boring, boring, ad nauseum boring, tedious, bores-me-to-tears boring. No bling, no eye candy, no Google job offers. No accolades, no developer street cred, absolutely no Open Source groupies.
Welcome to reality. What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite.
Rule 1 of IEDs - Make them look like something else.
Rule 2 - Place them where they can do the most damage.
Rule 1 of IEDs: Make them inconspicuous. "Like something else" is only a special application.
Blinking LED panels of cartoon characters flipping off the masses doesn't qualify as inconspicuous. It qualifies as successful "make them look like something else" in the most pointless, ineffectual, and irrelevant sense. In either case, as successful camoflage, you fail it.
Whether Bostonians recognize cartoon characters or guerrilla marketing is not the point. Whether Bostonians (or the rest of the American public) have been conditioned to reflexively fear anything unconventional or unrecognizedis the point.
Hoax device? Meaning, he was intentionally misrepresenting a lighted sign board a... sign? Perhaps, if they looked like actual bombs, they might have a point.
Perhaps, if it looked like anything that might startle and worry the anxious sheeple of Beantown....
"Hoax device" is in the eyes of the beholder, apparently.
Slashdot Mirror
What's that sound?
Vonage's business model evaporating.
Where is the accountability?
Well... ummm...
He expects to keep his job, presumably also pay, pension, benefits, etc.
It take accounting to keep track of all that money. So clearly, at least that part of his professional existence continues to be accountable.
Well, it's not like the "author" wants to clue the reader in on his modus operandi, does he?
The last word Enderle wants crossing his reader's mind is "zealotry".
Well, second to last. The real word he's trying to avoid is "shill". Or maybe "propaganda".
It did precisely what the analysts and coders told it to do.
But a headline like "Programmer Foul-up Breaks Canadian Tax Filing System" wouldn't be very newsworthy.
A headline like "Programmer Gets Canadian Tax Filing System Just Right" would be newsworthy. And astonishing.
but being informed on actuarial terms is not my business
Then you'd better have some damn good and damn accommodating domain experts.
An analyst's job is to understand the business rules and figure out how they can be sanely implemented in an IT solution. (Or, more importantly, when they can't.) And unfortunately, that sometimes means learning the jargon.
That's why my general (25-year) experience says that the best analysts are, first and formemost, generalists: capable of quickly absorbing the rudiments of any computable field of human endeavor. If you're doing the systems engineering for an accountancy, you'd better learn the fundamentals of accounting. Automating medical records? Learn medical recordkeeping. Weather forecasting? Heh. I could pass for a forecaster now, in casual conversation, because I've worked on weather data-gathering and forecasting systems so long.
Obviously, you are one of those quick-study generalists I spoke of, because of the breadth of (successful, I presume) systems you've helped implement.
That just leaves the problem of customers who don't actually know what they do, at least in enough clarity and specificity to implement as software. That's just a matter of patience and iteration. Prototyping can be helpful here, if you have time. Otherwise, I guess you just have to sigh and assume your first cut will be wrong.
from our conversation.
"Heathkit".
Damn, I miss that company.
Atheists, yes.
But the use of a definite singular article ("the Supreme Being" [emph. mine]) also rules out polytheistic religions, like Hinduism and Shinto.
Interesting. I was sceptical but you appear to be fundamentally right.
Per the South Carolina Constitution, Article VI, Section 2:
Weird. I'm amazed this hasn't been successfully challenged in the US Supreme Court yet. (I can't claim to be amazed that it hasn't been amended from within the state yet; in many states of the U.S., you'd have a hard time getting together enough of the population to support an atheism- or polytheism-friendly or religiously neurtral platform.)
2MPA2C*
*(too much prior art to cite)
some microbial life form to prevent Diakatanas instead.
You forgot the obligatory "YMMV".
Your bad experience with Ubuntu... is your experience alone.
I've had vastly fewer problems (and NO boot option tweaking) with Kubuntu Edgy than with RH9 and FC4. And on more "problematic" hardware (laptops, Frankenstein servers with bizarro interface cards..).
But, as always, YMMV.
That's the real problem. Until they look, the computer is in a superpositon of being and not being a quantum processor. They're afraid to look, lest its probability field collapse into an eigenstate of "just marketing hype."
Oh, I dunno. $640K should be enough for anyone.
I really wanted to moderate your comment. I just couldn't tell if I should have moderated "+1 Funny", "+1 Interesting", or "+1 TMI".
connectionless packet services?
Or have we forgotten about SQL Slammer, which used a UDP vector?
Unless, with appropriate hand-waving, we are no longer talking about connections patterns and switching the discussion to packet-destination patterns. Which opens up other UDP-based legitimate applications to pre-emptive blockage. Imagine your lag rage when your antivirus whacks your MMO session.
They probably spend at the absolute most a month outside of human contact at sea.
Not in the U. S. Navy's submarine service. The operating cycle of an Ohio-class ballistic missile sub appears to be 112 days, of which 74 are at sea and 38 days are in-port refit (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/1999/newssbn.htm). On that 2 1/2 month deterrent patrol, a Trident boomer won't surface, let alone put into port.
So at least in the boomer service, submarine crews spend a looong time away from anyone but each other.
What he actually meant was "64K ought to be enough for anybody"
What if I have rolling papers, and a pouch of tobacco?
What if you have a water pipe, and a pouch of tobacco? Oh, that's right, in many jurisdictions, you can't have a water pipe. Those are "paraphernalia".
In many legal contexts, the idea of "non-infringing uses" has been systematically ignored so long it practically doesn't matter.
Assume the following:
Can Novell profit? Can the FSF assert some prohibition that guts Novell's distro?
I don't know. IANAL. If Novell distributes the FSF goodies verbatim, and doesn't tailor them at all to accomodate the distro... the only thing I hook I can see is linking to FSF libraries in software which incorporates protected IP that Novell gains access to via this Novell/Microsoft deal. That, I could imagine. Other than that... What's Novell's risk?
Great, another stinking Outland resource grind.
Especially if it's software that enables random people to schedule them into time-wasting meetings at a click of a button.
Ah. I'm glad someone has a grasp of the true business need.
The fact that you don't approve, is both an indication that you're sane, and that a sign that your opinion is not relevant to the business case. Exchange compatibility is a non-negotiable, non-finesseable, titanium-clad, gotta-have-it-no-kidding, requirement. And it's boring, boring, ad nauseum boring, tedious, bores-me-to-tears boring. No bling, no eye candy, no Google job offers. No accolades, no developer street cred, absolutely no Open Source groupies.
Welcome to reality. What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite.
"My name is Leenus Torvalts and I pronounce Leenux 'echo wy pipe format c colon slash you'"
Rule 1 of IEDs - Make them look like something else.
Rule 2 - Place them where they can do the most damage.
Rule 1 of IEDs: Make them inconspicuous. "Like something else" is only a special application.
Blinking LED panels of cartoon characters flipping off the masses doesn't qualify as inconspicuous. It qualifies as successful "make them look like something else" in the most pointless, ineffectual, and irrelevant sense. In either case, as successful camoflage, you fail it.
Whether Bostonians recognize cartoon characters or guerrilla marketing is not the point. Whether Bostonians (or the rest of the American public) have been conditioned to reflexively fear anything unconventional or unrecognizedis the point.
Hoax device? Meaning, he was intentionally misrepresenting a lighted sign board a ... sign? Perhaps, if they looked like actual bombs, they might have a point.
Perhaps, if it looked like anything that might startle and worry the anxious sheeple of Beantown....
"Hoax device" is in the eyes of the beholder, apparently.
And let us not forget that bastardized 25-pin "not nearly enough grounding" pseudo SCSI connector standard they championed. Meh.