While there are developers that dive right into the code, more often than not, the PBH's are the ones who dont want to allow the time to nail requirements.
The current project I am on started well, with an attempt to nail requirements, then the customer got into "why isnt this stuff working" mode ( before my time, actually ), so, I have been working hard on getting the project out of firefighting mode ( close to done with that, I think, too.. ). And in many cases, the customer simply did not know what they wanted until they had something in front of them to work with, then the bug fest started, and we eventually made them happy on that front. Course, the customer is paying for that, many parts of this system have been redone several times. I count myself luck that I have access to several subject matter experts that I can talk to, pretty much any time.
I had a crew of 2 kinda working for me. One person was in early in the morning, he did not drink coffee.
I think you see where this is going....
Anyway, one of the big wigs at this company decided it would be nice if he could get the coffee going when he got in, so that they would not be bothered with such things.
Fortunately, I was able to go to my boss and get this stopped, since he was not a coffee drinker, and had other things to do...
Other tidbit. From this crew of three, we were expected to maintain 5 day a week, 24 hours a day coverage.
That's funny, I *just* happen to have a framework using a language with built in time wasting. Lots of it, more even than the fabled internet. ( Hard to believe, I know, but stick with it ).
The cost is fairly minimal, and there is a methodology that I have worked out with it.
My consulting team can get yours trained up and ready in a very short time (tm).
It's funny to watch people do demonstrations of how quickly Ruby on Rails can be used to build something
And it is also funny to have to take that demonstration code and turn it into a production ready system. Time is never sufficient, because management can only see the (poorly) implemented features, and not the lack of error handling and return value checking, and robustness.
Not that you dont have a good point, but I have seen many cases where the developers want to converse with the subject matter experts, but they and the management above the SME's will not commit the time needed to do this. So, the quick, wrong ( in part anyway ) answer is given, the system is wrong, and development is blamed.
And continuous deliverables and agile development can be a good solution, but only if the users will put in the time to evaluate the incremental drops. And that, often enough, depends on the management levels above them allowing them the time.
I've known more than a few programmers like that, unfortunately. I dont consider them the ideal, just the ones that management hires because they dont know what to value. The better programmers of my acquaintance know the value in the existing code, and are not hot to continually reinvent the wheel.
You are exactly right, except I would say that it is business that fails to see that the reason for the IT department is to support the needs of the business. My admittedly anecdotal view is that most "business" types just expect IT to keep the machines running, and dont come to IT and say "we want to do 'X'" or "can we do 'Y' more efficiently", or "what can we do next to improve how IT can support the business". In fact, advice from IT seems to be rejected with a "it will cost too much".
I would recommend making sure the plug/pan interface is free of any grime, then it wont stick. Easier said than done, of course.
Most of the vehicles I have changed the oil on have had regular wrench flats on the plug. My Saturn apparently has a torx fitting, as the dealership used the wrong tool on it, and buggered it up.
I recall once using a screwdriver to remove an oil filter that I could not get off with the strap wrench, boy was that messy!
If it is about the director's intent, then Why are there "director's cuts" of these movies being sold?
Because the "artistic intent" of the director was compromised by the production group on the basis of sellability. That is OK, but for me to edit the movie to suit my sensibilities is not?
Most seem to be passionate about making lots of money, not the companies mission or destiny.
On the "larger risk and liability" two things.
The CEO and executives dont usually suffer the consequences of their decisionmaking, the rank and file do, in layoffs. Rarely does the board remove the CEO. And usually then, the golden parachute that is part of their contract leaves them well set up.
Second, they make the decisions, why shouldnt they be the ones that the consequences affect? Where is that good old Republican "personal responsibility"? The lower level beancounters have some responsiblity for not blowing the whistle, but that is nothing compared to the responsiblity for making the original decisions.
That said, there are some small numbers of companies who's executive staffs are passionate about what the company is about.
I am assuming that you mean that India ( for example ) would be the one kissing goodbuy ( pun intended )...?
In making the goods, they will be advancing themselves. And once that has gone on far enough, I dont know how this would be stopped, IP laws or no. Factories would not go out of existance. The knowledge of how to work the equipment would not disappear. And who knows how the trading partners will be feeling about this some time out, they might be a bit ready to do the same, if they havent already.
Look at China today. America does not seem to have a lot of leverage there economically.
If you find the content "offensive" then why would you pay for a sanitized version?
Because not all of the content is "offensive"?
And because there may be a point or twelve on which I disagree with the morals of the original creator, does not mean that I disagree with everything the original creator has in the way of morals.
And anyone calling themselves Christian and pirating movies has something to work out with themselves. At least in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely right...
While there are developers that dive right into the
code, more often than not, the PBH's are the ones who
dont want to allow the time to nail requirements.
The current project I am on started well, with an
attempt to nail requirements, then the customer got
into "why isnt this stuff working" mode ( before my
time, actually ), so, I have been working hard on
getting the project out of firefighting mode ( close
to done with that, I think, too.. ). And in many
cases, the customer simply did not know what they
wanted until they had something in front of them to
work with, then the bug fest started, and we eventually
made them happy on that front. Course, the customer
is paying for that, many parts of this system have
been redone several times. I count myself luck that
I have access to several subject matter experts that I
can talk to, pretty much any time.
Funny, that brings back a moment from the past...
I had a crew of 2 kinda working for me. One person
was in early in the morning, he did not drink coffee.
I think you see where this is going....
Anyway, one of the big wigs at this company decided
it would be nice if he could get the coffee going
when he got in, so that they would not be bothered
with such things.
Fortunately, I was able to go to my boss and get this
stopped, since he was not a coffee drinker, and had
other things to do...
Other tidbit. From this crew of three, we were expected
to maintain 5 day a week, 24 hours a day coverage.
That's funny, I *just* happen to have a framework
using a language with built in time wasting.
Lots of it, more even than the fabled internet.
( Hard to believe, I know, but stick with it ).
The cost is fairly minimal, and there is a methodology
that I have worked out with it.
My consulting team can get yours trained up and
ready in a very short time (tm).
I think you just reinforced my point... :-)
It is part of my implemented feature set.
And it is also funny to have to take that demonstration code and turn
it into a production ready system. Time is never sufficient, because
management can only see the (poorly) implemented features, and not
the lack of error handling and return value checking, and robustness.
Not that you dont have a good point, but I have seen
many cases where the developers want to converse with
the subject matter experts, but they and the management
above the SME's will not commit the time needed to do
this. So, the quick, wrong ( in part anyway ) answer
is given, the system is wrong, and development is
blamed.
And continuous deliverables and agile development can
be a good solution, but only if the users will put in
the time to evaluate the incremental drops. And that,
often enough, depends on the management levels above
them allowing them the time.
I've known more than a few programmers like that,
unfortunately. I dont consider them the ideal,
just the ones that management hires because they
dont know what to value. The better programmers
of my acquaintance know the value in the existing
code, and are not hot to continually reinvent
the wheel.
Now, how to convince the PHB's and the bean counters?
Funny is better than troll or redundant
;-)
or one of the other "i dont agree with you"
moderation possiblities.
Good luck finding a non-Dilbert job.
You are exactly right, except I would say that
it is business that fails to see that the reason
for the IT department is to support the needs
of the business. My admittedly anecdotal view
is that most "business" types just expect IT
to keep the machines running, and dont come to
IT and say "we want to do 'X'" or "can we do
'Y' more efficiently", or "what can we do next
to improve how IT can support the business".
In fact, advice from IT seems to be rejected
with a "it will cost too much".
You mean that business will stop treating IT
like janitorial staff? Start acting on the ideas
that IT brings to the table?
If *I* owned a time machine, I would start a freight delivery company.
Oops yesterday Air delivery.
Perhaps because Google's customers care?
Then Bell South needs to change it's peering arrangements with "West Coast Foo Bell".
You mean the plug in the oil pan?
I would recommend making sure the plug/pan
interface is free of any grime, then it wont stick.
Easier said than done, of course.
Most of the vehicles I have changed the oil on have
had regular wrench flats on the plug. My Saturn
apparently has a torx fitting, as the dealership
used the wrong tool on it, and buggered it up.
I recall once using a screwdriver to remove an
oil filter that I could not get off with the
strap wrench, boy was that messy!
That is the secret
6. Even More Profit
step that had not been revealed until now.
we had
4. Profit ( selling the games since the resell market is closed )
5. More Profit ( reselling the games again, when the console is replaced )
and now
6. Even More Profit ( reselling the console when it goes bad ( sending us back to 5, also ) )
Screwdriver? What do you use a screwdriver for?
I prefer strap wrenches to remove the oil filter.
That is, if it doesnt come off by hand.
If it is about the director's intent, then
Why are there "director's cuts" of these
movies being sold?
Because the "artistic intent" of the director
was compromised by the production group on
the basis of sellability. That is OK, but
for me to edit the movie to suit my
sensibilities is not?
Perhaps you have seen my porn collection.
I keep it on all the servers on the internet.
( Apologies to Steven Wright ).
Depends on what they are passionate *about*.
Most seem to be passionate about making lots of money,
not the companies mission or destiny.
On the "larger risk and liability" two things.
The CEO and executives dont usually suffer the consequences
of their decisionmaking, the rank and file do, in layoffs.
Rarely does the board remove the CEO. And usually then,
the golden parachute that is part of their contract leaves
them well set up.
Second, they make the decisions, why shouldnt they be the
ones that the consequences affect? Where is that good
old Republican "personal responsibility"? The lower level
beancounters have some responsiblity for not blowing the
whistle, but that is nothing compared to the responsiblity
for making the original decisions.
That said, there are some small numbers of companies who's
executive staffs are passionate about what the company
is about.
Quite. That is why I put the "mostly" in.
You have to look at these things a bit when they
come up and evaluate relevance.
Maybe some things that are relevant slip.
If you figure out how to solve this problem,
let me know!
Ignore it mostly, until it becomes relevant to you.
I am assuming that you mean that India ( for example ) would be
the one kissing goodbuy ( pun intended )...?
In making the goods, they will be advancing themselves. And once
that has gone on far enough, I dont know how this would be stopped,
IP laws or no. Factories would not go out of existance. The knowledge
of how to work the equipment would not disappear. And who knows
how the trading partners will be feeling about this some time out,
they might be a bit ready to do the same, if they havent already.
Look at China today. America does not seem to have
a lot of leverage there economically.
Because not all of the content is "offensive"?
And because there may be a point or twelve on which
I disagree with the morals of the original creator,
does not mean that I disagree with everything the
original creator has in the way of morals.
And anyone calling themselves Christian and pirating
movies has something to work out with themselves.
At least in my opinion.