It is with great regret that we have learned of the discontinuation of your how-to manual, Halting State.
We have unfortunately not been able to encourage Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom in a timely manner, however, we assure you that our state of Quantum Computing has reached appropriate levels.
We have been eagerly awaiting your third instalment. Considering your decision to discontinue your series, we would appreciate any notes you have to be emailed. Anywhere will be fine.
But think of the levels of trust! SURELY, you would trust a treasured name in industry, over a rag tag bunch of pirates who choose to remain anonymous, right? Anyone would trust these guys with their money.
Shiplee said: “Technology is moving very rapidly, such things weren’t available as they are today.”
If you actually read the contents of the article, it seems that Howard Shiplee was taken out of context. (Say it aint so)
It seems to me that lots and lots of small components were available for the final software product, but due to the complexities of navigating a large bureaucracy, larger systems that closely fit the requirements were needed. At the end of the day, it's just boxes on a piece of paper to an architectural "expert" somewhere. At the end of the day, it's all about risk, and how that risk is managed. The usual trick for middle management to keep their jobs, is to get the risk exported.
“You would find it very hard to find vendors in the market place to do this work at full risk. So the department took up the risk.”
Anyone who understands the concept that an entity, both corporate or government can't export risk is deserving of respect. Sure, you can have contracts with vendors that give guaranteed SLA's, but at the end of the day, if a government service goes down, and there's a 100% risk export, for sure when the media gets to it, "IBM messed up, it's not our fault!" simply doesn't cut it. A ton of mud will still stick to those who are beholden to the responsibility of a service that they provide.
Even financially, the risk that is exported is only ever as good as the other companies working capital and professional indemnity insurance.
False analogy. It's like having wads and wads of US Dollars after a nuclear war. In the end, Nuka Cola caps are the only currency worth anything. (Except of course the Sierra Madre)
The problem rests with application stakeholders, and the fact that the numbers don't match up. I'm in agile workshops all of the time to kick off projects, and at the beginning, they quantify that 5% of users is the efficiency cutoff.
You use IE6? You're under 5%. Out.
You use IE7? Now you're under 5% too. Out.
You need a JAWS compatible website? You're under 5%. Out.
One client actually had figures above 5%. They were kind enough to lump blind users in with those that used crappy old feature phones. If you combine those two groups, you're above 5%. Made it through the first story board meetings.
Half way through the project, features had to be dropped. Now they don't have JAWS, and the feature phone is no longer a feature.
Unfortunately, it's just not economically viable to cater for this market, so it suffers from a tragedy of commons, which seems to be par for the course these days.
Slashdot Mirror
They're "Peace keepers". You'd do well to remember that, citizen.
Dear Mr. Stross,
It is with great regret that we have learned of the discontinuation of your how-to manual, Halting State.
We have unfortunately not been able to encourage Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom in a timely manner, however, we assure you that our state of Quantum Computing has reached appropriate levels.
We have been eagerly awaiting your third instalment. Considering your decision to discontinue your series, we would appreciate any notes you have to be emailed. Anywhere will be fine.
Yours sincerely,
Manne I. Black
NSA
Nah, turtles all the way down, then you hit a tortoise and a SVN repository
Um... no... See "Broken window fallacy"
But... I sent him little Johnny's college fund!
But think of the levels of trust! SURELY, you would trust a treasured name in industry, over a rag tag bunch of pirates who choose to remain anonymous, right? Anyone would trust these guys with their money.
Shiplee said: “Technology is moving very rapidly, such things weren’t available as they are today.”
If you actually read the contents of the article, it seems that Howard Shiplee was taken out of context. (Say it aint so)
It seems to me that lots and lots of small components were available for the final software product, but due to the complexities of navigating a large bureaucracy, larger systems that closely fit the requirements were needed. At the end of the day, it's just boxes on a piece of paper to an architectural "expert" somewhere. At the end of the day, it's all about risk, and how that risk is managed. The usual trick for middle management to keep their jobs, is to get the risk exported.
“You would find it very hard to find vendors in the market place to do this work at full risk. So the department took up the risk.”
Anyone who understands the concept that an entity, both corporate or government can't export risk is deserving of respect. Sure, you can have contracts with vendors that give guaranteed SLA's, but at the end of the day, if a government service goes down, and there's a 100% risk export, for sure when the media gets to it, "IBM messed up, it's not our fault!" simply doesn't cut it. A ton of mud will still stick to those who are beholden to the responsibility of a service that they provide.
Even financially, the risk that is exported is only ever as good as the other companies working capital and professional indemnity insurance.
The world is safe for another 4 years...
I'm just waiting for the smart bro
Exactly the same level of content as the article.
Will somebody think of Caesar?
A few users even use password reset tools every time they access services without even trying a password first.
Why blame someone who doesn't get their ambitions and capabilities mixed up?
I can see people queueing for this game.
Honestly honey, I didn't mean to say that. It was google!
Use the smelloscope.
I'll bet they'll veto anyone who tries to use Linux or teach kids about privacy.
I'm sorry, that information is confidential.
The problem comes when your friends try to make "friends" with you. And when you refuse, they start tagging you in images.
False analogy. It's like having wads and wads of US Dollars after a nuclear war. In the end, Nuka Cola caps are the only currency worth anything. (Except of course the Sierra Madre)
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone else isn't babbling about you on facebook.
This comment was proudly brought to you by the Monsanto corporation.
Crabury Dairy Milk chocolate. It's as tasty as it sounds!
Pffft. It's so worth it for scaring Chilean students who think they're going for a job interview. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411950/Scariest-job-interview-LG-terrifies-applicants-Chile-faking-massive-meteor-crash-outside-office-window-thats-really-ultra-high-def-TV-screen.html
The problem rests with application stakeholders, and the fact that the numbers don't match up. I'm in agile workshops all of the time to kick off projects, and at the beginning, they quantify that 5% of users is the efficiency cutoff.
You use IE6? You're under 5%. Out.
You use IE7? Now you're under 5% too. Out.
You need a JAWS compatible website? You're under 5%. Out.
One client actually had figures above 5%. They were kind enough to lump blind users in with those that used crappy old feature phones. If you combine those two groups, you're above 5%. Made it through the first story board meetings.
Half way through the project, features had to be dropped. Now they don't have JAWS, and the feature phone is no longer a feature.
Unfortunately, it's just not economically viable to cater for this market, so it suffers from a tragedy of commons, which seems to be par for the course these days.
To cloud based high energy network.
NOW they tell me my tinfoil hat in fact amplifies my brainwaves to be read. THANKS A LOT LONE GUNMEN!