Having met several people in person that I first met through e-mail or chat (fellow programmers and co-workers from remote locations), I've noticed several interesting dynamics from virtual communications relative to those of "real life." Some of these are obvious, such as judging people by how well they express their ideas and opinions in words (instead of by their appearance or personal hygiene).
Others are more subtle, and are apparent only over time, such as the speed with which someone responds. Do they think quickly, but type slowly? Do they fly off the handle and just post the first thing that comes to mind, or do they carefully consider every response?
In most cases, I have found that getting to know someone online, over time, gives you a better perspective on how that person sees themselves. If they have low self-esteem, that will come across (eventually). If they're confident and authoritative, that will show (again, over time). If they're egotistical and full of themselves, they'll have microsoft.com in their e-mail address.
However, you *can* get to know someone really well on one level (or in a given context), and completely miss another. For instance, I used to manage several mailing lists about Borland Delphi. One of the moderators for the list, named Jo, was moving from one part of South Africa to another, and was offline for a couple of weeks. I had known Jo for years as a serious gearhead when it came to Delphi Database programming. After I asked one of the other moderators about Jo by saying, "Where is he moving?", I discovered that Jo was, in fact, a woman.
At that point, Jo's signature line took on new meaning (and I got a much-needed lesson in gender stereotyping): "I am a programmer - I don't do relationships."
Having done about a dozen of the webcam promos with a cohort of mine, I have to agree. Seeing some of the bizarre (and frequently hysterical) things people would come up with for a "well be right back" blip gave you a sense that it was a network run BY geeks and FOR geeks.
Yes, there was plenty of lame programming, but it had the feel of a whole bunch of computer folks getting together and talking to each other, while allowing the general public to tune in if they cared to.
If you treat your employees like criminals, they'll live up to that reputation. If you treat them like adults, they'll live up to that too.
Though you clearly can't operate with a "trust environment" for some businesses, many would be wise to do so. The checks and balances that supposedly keep me from ripping off my employer would do little to keep me from doing so if I were determined.
Instead, they make me jump through all sorts of hoops, including having my team fill out PO's for me to sign instead of writing them myself. (I can sign their PO's for up to $12K, but if I request something myself, my signature authority is only $500. Go figure.)
I think I speak for many of us when I say I'm baffled that you have both battery acid AND gasoline on top of your head in sufficient quantities to correctly surmise which has a lower vapor pressure.
Fortunately, my house wasn't designed and built with this mindset. Hundreds of standards, necessary to guarantee my safety and the potential for reselling my house in the future, were all known to the various people that designed and built the house. That analogy doesn't always work, but in the case of a custom-designed home, it's pretty close. However, it does put the "cowboy architect" out of work, so where's the fun in that?
There are clear benefits to Open Source Development methods, but blindly suggesting one approach for all projects is a bit short-sighted. I would suggest that your teacher spend some time working in the real world, where if you don't get a clear Requirement Specification from the stakeholders/customers, you'll be wasting away hours and hours trying to keep them happy, and keeping them happy is what pays your salary.
Requirements, both System Requirements (operating system dependencies, existing protocols, legacy systems, and so on) and User Requirements (performance goals, UI expectations, and so on) should drive the Functional Spec ("what it will do"), which should in turn drive both the test plan ("does it do what the user wants?") and design ("how it does it"). If you choose to use "subcycles" as the survey describes them, or one big honkin' cycle, it matters little. These steps always exist when software engineering is taking place (as opposed to simply hacking away), whether you put these labels on the steps or not.
To suggest that "Requirements are the Enemy of Design" is like suggesting that the "Bullseye is the Enemy of Aiming."
Tim
P.S. There are times that "Ready, Fire, Aim, Fire" is the right approach. However, you still have to know where the bullseye is, look to see if you hit it or not, and know what you did to aim in the place you aimed for the first shot.
You own a car that has an interior noise floor lower than 40-50dB? You'd have to have such a vehicle to be able to detect a S/N ratio of better than 65dB or so, which is what it sounds like you're describing (max volume - noise floor > source S/N ratio). Have you even TRIED listening to an iPod coming in through RCA inputs to compare the sound against your in-dash unit's D/A conversion? If you've done so, and the results were truly audible, then I apologize.
Look, I'm a car audio snob as much as the next guy (sealed-box sub in the trunk, 5-channel amp, component door units with high-mounted tweeters, etc.), but I'm not about to suggest that true audiophile quality sound is possible in MY car (1997 Nissan Maxima). In my experience, there's simply too much ambient road noise, particularly in the sub50 Hz range and too many issues concerning accurate soundstage (misc reflections as well as dramatic phase issues related to my proximity to the driver's side speakers) to consider any car-audio system to be truly competitive with an above-average home system.
What's strange about this? The fact is, violation of copyright denies the victim revenue. It is illegal.
Also a fact (based on my recollection of the timing of AutoCAD's move to market dominance and the recent analysis of the impact of P2P networks on CD sales), piracy can be good for a product's overall market position.
In short, just because something is illegal or immoral, doesn't mean it's bad for business. For more evidence of this, look at the recent analysis of MS.
No, I'm saying that IN THIS CASE, it's both illegal and morally wrong. DRM may be flawed and imperfect, but the fact remains that if you downloaded music and accepted the terms of the agreement, then you are accepting the moral (and possibly legal, but that's not been determined--see elsewhere in this thread) terms of using the material. I may (or may not) feel that abortion is wrong, but it's most certainly legal.
Back to iTunes/DRM.
As other have stated MANY times, it's very easy to move these songs to a CD and completely eliminate the DRM encoding--without using anything but iTunes! Doing so is WELL WITHIN the bounds of the terms of the agreement, and I've done it with several songs/albums.
OK... try rewiring the cable coming into your house to get HBO/Showtime/Whatever. Don't think "theft of service" is going to apply?
Let's say it cost you several thousand to generate some document that you've got on your hard drive and I hack into the box and get it. Is it now OK because I was smart enough to get it and you weren't smart enough to protect it?
I'm SICK TO DEATH of people trying to justify stealing material that's clearly protected by copyright, and using arguments like "most of the songs on the CD are trash" or "the artists aren't getting much of the revenue anyway."
I violate the speed limit on a regular basis, but I'm not about to whine about it when I get caught. At least be mature enough to admit that what you're doing is no different (legally or morally) from stealing tangible goods.
THEY ARE THE SAME. It denies the victim revenue.
As I've stated elsewhere, that doesn't mean that piracy is always a bad thing. In the case of AutoDesk, pirated copies of AutoCAD propelled it into the dominant market position much faster than it would have ever arrived there otherwise.
By the same token, the record companies are being short-sighted if they think that pirated MP3s aren't helping to sell more music. Even so, if you violate the copyright and have stolen (not paid for) the goods that you now possess, you're stealing, even if the person you "stole" from still retains their copy.
Oh puhlease... trying to make an association between your quote from MLK Jr. and your dislike of DRM makes your argument look ridiculous.
Suggesting that DRM is a black/white right/wrong issue is pretty ridiculous. You no doubt would love to protect your own rights to things you have of value (you do lock up your valuables... right?). Are you suggesting that because I have a moral problem with the idea of things being locked up, and found a site that allows me to successfully pick any MasterLock, that it's now perfectly OK for me to come by when you're not home, pick the lock, and take what doesn't belong to me?
I can agree/disagree with the IMPLEMENTATION of DRM in this case, or I can say that it's a mixed bag. In my opinion, it's a mixed bag, and people who are going out of their way to circumvent the MINIMAL DRM on iTunes are simply looking for a way to justify immoral/illegal behavior.
If I give you a magic black box that you can put a fish in and the fish will turn into a chicken, and there's no way for you to take apart the box, then even though I'm demonstrating the effectiveness of the box in turning fish into chickens I'm not forfeiting any patent rights...
Do you realize the folks from KFC are gonna be all over this?
In the words of Ernest P. Worrell, "We fry chickens in this town."
and referenced a tourette-syndrome rant from Annalee Newitz entitled "Techsploitation." The rest of Orlowski's post made reasonable sense, but you can wait until the Dogcows come home ("moof"); you ain't gonna see digital distribution of music from the major labels without some form of DRM, and iTunes' variety is about as innocuous as you can get.
Slashdot Mirror
...or does this look a lot like the iTunes Visualizer on Valium, and without the music?
Tim
Having met several people in person that I first met through e-mail or chat (fellow programmers and co-workers from remote locations), I've noticed several interesting dynamics from virtual communications relative to those of "real life." Some of these are obvious, such as judging people by how well they express their ideas and opinions in words (instead of by their appearance or personal hygiene).
Others are more subtle, and are apparent only over time, such as the speed with which someone responds. Do they think quickly, but type slowly? Do they fly off the handle and just post the first thing that comes to mind, or do they carefully consider every response?
In most cases, I have found that getting to know someone online, over time, gives you a better perspective on how that person sees themselves. If they have low self-esteem, that will come across (eventually). If they're confident and authoritative, that will show (again, over time). If they're egotistical and full of themselves, they'll have microsoft.com in their e-mail address.
However, you *can* get to know someone really well on one level (or in a given context), and completely miss another. For instance, I used to manage several mailing lists about Borland Delphi. One of the moderators for the list, named Jo, was moving from one part of South Africa to another, and was offline for a couple of weeks. I had known Jo for years as a serious gearhead when it came to Delphi Database programming. After I asked one of the other moderators about Jo by saying, "Where is he moving?", I discovered that Jo was, in fact, a woman.
At that point, Jo's signature line took on new meaning (and I got a much-needed lesson in gender stereotyping): "I am a programmer - I don't do relationships."
Tim
...my kids put in the Ultra Hi Def Barney Video.
Serenity NOW!
Tim
Having done about a dozen of the webcam promos with a cohort of mine, I have to agree. Seeing some of the bizarre (and frequently hysterical) things people would come up with for a "well be right back" blip gave you a sense that it was a network run BY geeks and FOR geeks.
Yes, there was plenty of lame programming, but it had the feel of a whole bunch of computer folks getting together and talking to each other, while allowing the general public to tune in if they cared to.
Oh well...
Tim
I believe he meant, "Fuels 2-3 billion," as in "keeps 2-3 billion in fossil-fuels for well two to three hundred years."
Tim
I think we (Slashdot) are much more likely to know how to find the wireless network version. For us, that's where things get really exciting!
Tim
con pana... compana... ba nahnah... banana
It's hard enough to get them to figure out that I want espresso with no latte. Now I gotta pronounce it correctly? Sheesh...
On the other hand, I could skip the Italian and just say "Country." Italian coffee shops wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about though...
Tim
Give me a quad compana (espresso w/ whipped cream) and a shot of white chocolate. Think of it as a concentrated Quad White Mocha, at half the price!
Ah...
Tim
Tim
...will it be able to run Longhorn?
Tim
If you treat your employees like criminals, they'll live up to that reputation. If you treat them like adults, they'll live up to that too.
Though you clearly can't operate with a "trust environment" for some businesses, many would be wise to do so. The checks and balances that supposedly keep me from ripping off my employer would do little to keep me from doing so if I were determined.
Instead, they make me jump through all sorts of hoops, including having my team fill out PO's for me to sign instead of writing them myself. (I can sign their PO's for up to $12K, but if I request something myself, my signature authority is only $500. Go figure.)
This is just like your kids. Trust, but verify.
Tim
I think I speak for many of us when I say I'm baffled that you have both battery acid AND gasoline on top of your head in sufficient quantities to correctly surmise which has a lower vapor pressure.
Tim
Tim
Fortunately, my house wasn't designed and built with this mindset. Hundreds of standards, necessary to guarantee my safety and the potential for reselling my house in the future, were all known to the various people that designed and built the house. That analogy doesn't always work, but in the case of a custom-designed home, it's pretty close. However, it does put the "cowboy architect" out of work, so where's the fun in that?
There are clear benefits to Open Source Development methods, but blindly suggesting one approach for all projects is a bit short-sighted. I would suggest that your teacher spend some time working in the real world, where if you don't get a clear Requirement Specification from the stakeholders/customers, you'll be wasting away hours and hours trying to keep them happy, and keeping them happy is what pays your salary.
Requirements, both System Requirements (operating system dependencies, existing protocols, legacy systems, and so on) and User Requirements (performance goals, UI expectations, and so on) should drive the Functional Spec ("what it will do"), which should in turn drive both the test plan ("does it do what the user wants?") and design ("how it does it"). If you choose to use "subcycles" as the survey describes them, or one big honkin' cycle, it matters little. These steps always exist when software engineering is taking place (as opposed to simply hacking away), whether you put these labels on the steps or not.
To suggest that "Requirements are the Enemy of Design" is like suggesting that the "Bullseye is the Enemy of Aiming."
Tim
P.S. There are times that "Ready, Fire, Aim, Fire" is the right approach. However, you still have to know where the bullseye is, look to see if you hit it or not, and know what you did to aim in the place you aimed for the first shot.
Tim
You own a car that has an interior noise floor lower than 40-50dB? You'd have to have such a vehicle to be able to detect a S/N ratio of better than 65dB or so, which is what it sounds like you're describing (max volume - noise floor > source S/N ratio). Have you even TRIED listening to an iPod coming in through RCA inputs to compare the sound against your in-dash unit's D/A conversion? If you've done so, and the results were truly audible, then I apologize.
Look, I'm a car audio snob as much as the next guy (sealed-box sub in the trunk, 5-channel amp, component door units with high-mounted tweeters, etc.), but I'm not about to suggest that true audiophile quality sound is possible in MY car (1997 Nissan Maxima). In my experience, there's simply too much ambient road noise, particularly in the sub50 Hz range and too many issues concerning accurate soundstage (misc reflections as well as dramatic phase issues related to my proximity to the driver's side speakers) to consider any car-audio system to be truly competitive with an above-average home system.
Tim
...California Grills
What's strange about this? The fact is, violation of copyright denies the victim revenue. It is illegal.
Also a fact (based on my recollection of the timing of AutoCAD's move to market dominance and the recent analysis of the impact of P2P networks on CD sales), piracy can be good for a product's overall market position.
In short, just because something is illegal or immoral, doesn't mean it's bad for business. For more evidence of this, look at the recent analysis of MS.
Tim
No, I'm saying that IN THIS CASE, it's both illegal and morally wrong. DRM may be flawed and imperfect, but the fact remains that if you downloaded music and accepted the terms of the agreement, then you are accepting the moral (and possibly legal, but that's not been determined--see elsewhere in this thread) terms of using the material. I may (or may not) feel that abortion is wrong, but it's most certainly legal.
Back to iTunes/DRM.
As other have stated MANY times, it's very easy to move these songs to a CD and completely eliminate the DRM encoding--without using anything but iTunes! Doing so is WELL WITHIN the bounds of the terms of the agreement, and I've done it with several songs/albums.
Tim
OK... try rewiring the cable coming into your house to get HBO/Showtime/Whatever. Don't think "theft of service" is going to apply?
Let's say it cost you several thousand to generate some document that you've got on your hard drive and I hack into the box and get it. Is it now OK because I was smart enough to get it and you weren't smart enough to protect it?
I'm SICK TO DEATH of people trying to justify stealing material that's clearly protected by copyright, and using arguments like "most of the songs on the CD are trash" or "the artists aren't getting much of the revenue anyway."
I violate the speed limit on a regular basis, but I'm not about to whine about it when I get caught. At least be mature enough to admit that what you're doing is no different (legally or morally) from stealing tangible goods.
THEY ARE THE SAME. It denies the victim revenue.
As I've stated elsewhere, that doesn't mean that piracy is always a bad thing. In the case of AutoDesk, pirated copies of AutoCAD propelled it into the dominant market position much faster than it would have ever arrived there otherwise.
By the same token, the record companies are being short-sighted if they think that pirated MP3s aren't helping to sell more music. Even so, if you violate the copyright and have stolen (not paid for) the goods that you now possess, you're stealing, even if the person you "stole" from still retains their copy.
This isn't rocket surgery.
Tim
Oh puhlease... trying to make an association between your quote from MLK Jr. and your dislike of DRM makes your argument look ridiculous.
Suggesting that DRM is a black/white right/wrong issue is pretty ridiculous. You no doubt would love to protect your own rights to things you have of value (you do lock up your valuables... right?). Are you suggesting that because I have a moral problem with the idea of things being locked up, and found a site that allows me to successfully pick any MasterLock, that it's now perfectly OK for me to come by when you're not home, pick the lock, and take what doesn't belong to me?
I can agree/disagree with the IMPLEMENTATION of DRM in this case, or I can say that it's a mixed bag. In my opinion, it's a mixed bag, and people who are going out of their way to circumvent the MINIMAL DRM on iTunes are simply looking for a way to justify immoral/illegal behavior.
Tim
In the words of Ernest P. Worrell, "We fry chickens in this town."
Tim
(living in the home town of KFC corporate)
Tim
Tim
What? Nobody misread "Symbian" when used in a post that also contained the word "vibrate"?
/. coming to?
What is
Tim