Q. What are some things that the managers are ranked on?
A. Some of them are very straightforward â" the manager treats me with respect, the manager gives me clear goals, the manager shares information, the manager treats the entire team fairly. These are fundamental things that turn out to be really important in making people feel excited and happy and wanting to go the extra mile for you.
Might also explain projects with no benefit. As long as their employees like the manager, everything's cool.
I wonder if the pro bono lawyer was alluding to something in the final paragraph. Like for example, the hired gun lawyer was representing someone other than the city/municipality?
No, just an observation. When they push themselves so far off the normal curve then they'll fall off the map entirely, like the shakers or quakers... whichever one isn't around any more.
Where does it say he Obama was doing anything illegally? I thought he was doing this using laws passed by Bush and his cronies in congress. But if not, the only reason would be is that Bush had his crony republican congress pass laws allowing him to make secret police activities legal; and Obama did it without a law being passed because the current republican congress votes down even good ideas. Either way, I'd say that both are fucking scumbags.
It's not the technology, it's the composition. Some really good photographers like to shoot at least occasionally with real film cameras. Why, because it makes you more deliberate in how you frame your shot. You can't just fire off a thousand pics and hope to find a good one in there. You are limited and so you need to actually practice your craft. Then they can go back to digital, but they are more likely to find the good shots right away. And besides, most times an amateur can take a thousand shots and still have shit anyway, but occasionally gets lucky. A really good shot can make a story stand out and get people to buy a copy just to read about it. Hopefully freelance photographers will be able to make a living selling to the paper, but probably not. Another notch on the MBA playing only to the shareholders, and driving North America into mediocrity.
That's a myth. Both of those things can be overcome quite easily (yeah their example links to a business site but it doesn't make it untrue). It's perpetuated by the old, 'well everyone says so' bullshit. The reality is that builders don't have to dig deep because the frost line is not deep there and building codes say you don't have to dig deep. So it makes it cheaper to build if you don't dig a deep foundation like a properly built basement, with rebar reinforced concrete walls and floors and well drained gravel backfill outside like is done in more northerly parts of the country.
Southern Ontario has a lot of heavy red clay. I don't know anyone growing up, who didn't have a basement (I don't live there now). A lot of places have it. And you want to talk about expansion and contraction, look at Manitoba and Saskatchewan (with similar great plains/prairie soil). Especially Winnipeg which is build in a flood plain along the banks of a large (the Red) river. Talk about potential for water. The frost line is around 10 or 12 feet deep. That is a lot of depth for expansion and contraction (it's called frost heave). Every home practically has a basement there. And they have a technology called 'water proofing' now. It works on basements too. Seriously, only a retard would build a new house in Oklahoma (and the rest of tornado alley) without a basement that has at least a part with a cement cover. FWIW the 'showme' part of my nick comes from the fact I used to live in Missouri. I know the sound of the siren. And they have a lot of places without basements there too. Ridiculous.
Testing can find the presence of bugs, not the absence of them. An ages old adage that has withstood the test of time because it is true. Only the new to the game or naive would think otherwise.
Agreed. Agile is a WHOLE lot easier to get wrong than it is to get right. The benefits it promises come only from the synthesis of ALL its components. Project managers who think they understand it, but don't quite get it, wind up tweaking it just a bit...
Waterfall can give you some savings in this specific department because the initial system design already includes the final (or near-final) level of complexity, so you don't pay the extra cost of adding a new feature to an already existing system over and over again.... But for huge systems, these costs are preferable to the project-destroying costs of agile refactoring.
Discovered architecture. In big systems this approach is shite. Many systems need to work together in big projects. It is far better that all the interfaces are known in advance and well documented. That requires set goals to work towards as a whole. There is a need for architects, business systems analysts and project managers to have a vision of what is required and work towards it. Within the sub systems there is no reason that agile can't be used (but sure, not always). But when working between systems the interfaces should have already been negotiated. And sure, even those can't be set in stone and there needs to be some agility to required changes that are discovered; but not wholesale or unrestrained. The negotiated interfaces must at least be cast in metal, not stone. A little ductility is required, but it doesn't mean it should be easy. Not for the developer, nor for the business by the way. Expectations need to be managed on all sides. Often poor project management is exhibited by poor expectations management too.
But speaking of which, the business cases and needs have to be met in a known way. After a certain point that can't be agile. Businesses move slowly. Often they have to make wholesale changes to how they do business when new systems are put in place. They can't be made to keep shooting at moving targets. End user documentation and training needs to take place. This means the system can't be constantly changing after at least some point. What works for small systems with limited functionality and user-base will not work with large, hyper-large, and complex systems. And how do you test large complex systems to ensure it meets the needs of the end users when the system constantly changes. The interface to the end user needs to be negotiated and fixed in metal the same as inter-system interfaces.
I wish I could find the article but someone pointed to the center of a normal curve and said 'if this is your target audience' and then pointed to the extreme outlier region of the curve and said, 'this is you, if you are the one developing it.' It means that not everyone can be rocket scientists or programmers. Not everyone has the ability to keep learning new changes to the system they are expecting. And business can not be expected to receive the system, take the time figure out what it can do and how, and then train hundreds, and in this case thousands of users on how to use it. They need to know what they are getting ahead of time. They expect to have mock ups/prototypes before the final system arrives so that many of the users, especially the power users, will already have a handle on things so they can get everyone else up to speed. And sure, this can be done in an agile-ish manner. But like working with xml or json interfaces, if you remove fields or change aspects of the interface (like the meaning of a field) it is incredibly more disruptive than simply adding new fields. i.e. For a U.I. don't so much make changes to it, rather add to it. Totally redefining a look and feel will have huge repercussions and add a lot of cost outside of the development arena. Just look at how much a change in a word processor can impact an organization. No, not all your end users are as smart as you. On big projects, programmers, it isn't all about you!
And of course the bigger the system is, the more expensive
Not everyone has the talent or desire for college...
Not every college grad has the talent to be a plumber, carpenter, or electrician, either. Doesn't anyone ever stop to think that 4 years of apprenticeship is pretty much the same as 4 years of college? In fact most trades require some college courses as part of the apprenticeship these days. That is why a journeyman plumber, carpenter, millwright, electrician, etc can do their job competently, if not well from the beginning of most any job they show up to. Intelligence and how it is used is manifest differently in different people.
Sure an IT worker (or other college grad) might do 'OK' with carpentry or electrical if shown what to do; and after a few years of constant work or practice can approach what a journeyman can do. But attitudes that college grads are superior intellects compared to a tradesman help explain the scads of 'Home Improvement Gone Wrong' 'reality' shows (not to be confused with the shows where guys fix contractor's mistakes... mostly the bad contractors aren't journeymen either). Don't mistake people not being interested in science or accounting as a lack of intelligence. While not across the board, I would warrant that many journeymen tradespeople could learn how to do IT work if given a few years instruction too. Maybe like if they had taken 4 years of college in IT if they had been interested in the first place.
No I'm not a tradesman. But I have worked with many when I used to work in chemical/process engineering. Most I worked with were very smart and talented. As much as we think of different sciences as being specialized, requiring years of college training, tradesmen specialize as much. The only difference is how and where those learned skills and knowledge is applied. And yes, there are people who may not have the intelligence or critical thinking skills required to go to college... but often people who lack that level of intelligence wouldn't make a good tradesman either.
The price producers charge for things does not hinge completely on how much it costs to make. This is especially true for things that are cheap to make. Just because something costs pennies to make doesn't mean it will be sold for pennies. Ever heard the phrase, "charge what the market will bear?" And if in 30 years people in North America can't afford to buy stuff (due to automation and globalization), guaranteed somewhere in the world someone will be able to.
Personally I grow the raw material for my plastic. Then I bury it in the earth and let the weight of the overburden compress it a while... say a few million years... then I dig it back up and reprocess it into a form of carbon which I can synthesize into plastic. It is time consuming but I don't need petroleum for it. Once I can find a way to make it economical I'll commercialize it.
Hey retard, honey bees raised by bee keepers aren't the only things that pollinate our food crops. In fact they're not even the best at it. Commercial honey bees can't do it alone Any excuse to suck the corporate cock, eh? Jeezuz, give it a rest!
Sure, and I have only one device that I ever use, so that keychain program works great. And hell, a keychain program is better than writing them all down since it writes them down for you! I would be willing to bet that if sites forced you to have a unique password for each place, people would use less sites. If you make things hard to use, people won't use them.
How about using some of Regan's star wars technology? Not to blow stuff up, but to give it a hard push with powerful lasers or xray beams. Push the small stuff into a degrading orbit to burn up in the atmosphere. It would be easier to target the small stuff like since you don't have to be close to it to give it a nudge. Once the little pieces are cleaned up, they can go after the less prevalent bigger pieces.
Being a specialist in a product / technology is a wonderful achievement
And this is not you:
When you get work at an enterprise level - when building an application costs (development costs only - not deployment, hosting, or operational costs) million+ dollars, you need an architect
Even in application developers, I prefer someone who can think like an architect. They will produce more robust code that lasts/is relevant longer, that is more extensible and capable of integrating with other systems if needed. Even in smaller applications this is important. If you can't think like an architect, you won't be able to write this kind of code.
Slashdot Mirror
Might also explain projects with no benefit. As long as their employees like the manager, everything's cool.
I wonder if the pro bono lawyer was alluding to something in the final paragraph. Like for example, the hired gun lawyer was representing someone other than the city/municipality?
No, just an observation. When they push themselves so far off the normal curve then they'll fall off the map entirely, like the shakers or quakers... whichever one isn't around any more.
They are extremists/fanatics, even if they are not violent. This is just another form of themselves pushing themselves to the fringes.
Read up. He enjoyed 4 years of owning the house and 2 years the senate.
Where does it say he Obama was doing anything illegally? I thought he was doing this using laws passed by Bush and his cronies in congress. But if not, the only reason would be is that Bush had his crony republican congress pass laws allowing him to make secret police activities legal; and Obama did it without a law being passed because the current republican congress votes down even good ideas. Either way, I'd say that both are fucking scumbags.
It's not the technology, it's the composition. Some really good photographers like to shoot at least occasionally with real film cameras. Why, because it makes you more deliberate in how you frame your shot. You can't just fire off a thousand pics and hope to find a good one in there. You are limited and so you need to actually practice your craft. Then they can go back to digital, but they are more likely to find the good shots right away. And besides, most times an amateur can take a thousand shots and still have shit anyway, but occasionally gets lucky. A really good shot can make a story stand out and get people to buy a copy just to read about it. Hopefully freelance photographers will be able to make a living selling to the paper, but probably not. Another notch on the MBA playing only to the shareholders, and driving North America into mediocrity.
Adding something like this to a Google Glass type of technology would indeed make an interesting augmented reality.
Don't leave your camera in a car parked in the sun on a hot day or your sensor will turn into CO2! A joke, it's just a joke.
It only costs a few grand to add a basement to a new build.
That's a myth. Both of those things can be overcome quite easily (yeah their example links to a business site but it doesn't make it untrue). It's perpetuated by the old, 'well everyone says so' bullshit. The reality is that builders don't have to dig deep because the frost line is not deep there and building codes say you don't have to dig deep. So it makes it cheaper to build if you don't dig a deep foundation like a properly built basement, with rebar reinforced concrete walls and floors and well drained gravel backfill outside like is done in more northerly parts of the country.
Southern Ontario has a lot of heavy red clay. I don't know anyone growing up, who didn't have a basement (I don't live there now). A lot of places have it. And you want to talk about expansion and contraction, look at Manitoba and Saskatchewan (with similar great plains/prairie soil). Especially Winnipeg which is build in a flood plain along the banks of a large (the Red) river. Talk about potential for water. The frost line is around 10 or 12 feet deep. That is a lot of depth for expansion and contraction (it's called frost heave). Every home practically has a basement there. And they have a technology called 'water proofing' now. It works on basements too. Seriously, only a retard would build a new house in Oklahoma (and the rest of tornado alley) without a basement that has at least a part with a cement cover. FWIW the 'showme' part of my nick comes from the fact I used to live in Missouri. I know the sound of the siren. And they have a lot of places without basements there too. Ridiculous.
Testing can find the presence of bugs, not the absence of them. An ages old adage that has withstood the test of time because it is true. Only the new to the game or naive would think otherwise.
Strou soup is delicious. Tastes like pork.
Discovered architecture. In big systems this approach is shite. Many systems need to work together in big projects. It is far better that all the interfaces are known in advance and well documented. That requires set goals to work towards as a whole. There is a need for architects, business systems analysts and project managers to have a vision of what is required and work towards it. Within the sub systems there is no reason that agile can't be used (but sure, not always). But when working between systems the interfaces should have already been negotiated. And sure, even those can't be set in stone and there needs to be some agility to required changes that are discovered; but not wholesale or unrestrained. The negotiated interfaces must at least be cast in metal, not stone. A little ductility is required, but it doesn't mean it should be easy. Not for the developer, nor for the business by the way. Expectations need to be managed on all sides. Often poor project management is exhibited by poor expectations management too.
But speaking of which, the business cases and needs have to be met in a known way. After a certain point that can't be agile. Businesses move slowly. Often they have to make wholesale changes to how they do business when new systems are put in place. They can't be made to keep shooting at moving targets. End user documentation and training needs to take place. This means the system can't be constantly changing after at least some point. What works for small systems with limited functionality and user-base will not work with large, hyper-large, and complex systems. And how do you test large complex systems to ensure it meets the needs of the end users when the system constantly changes. The interface to the end user needs to be negotiated and fixed in metal the same as inter-system interfaces.
I wish I could find the article but someone pointed to the center of a normal curve and said 'if this is your target audience' and then pointed to the extreme outlier region of the curve and said, 'this is you, if you are the one developing it.' It means that not everyone can be rocket scientists or programmers. Not everyone has the ability to keep learning new changes to the system they are expecting. And business can not be expected to receive the system, take the time figure out what it can do and how, and then train hundreds, and in this case thousands of users on how to use it. They need to know what they are getting ahead of time. They expect to have mock ups/prototypes before the final system arrives so that many of the users, especially the power users, will already have a handle on things so they can get everyone else up to speed. And sure, this can be done in an agile-ish manner. But like working with xml or json interfaces, if you remove fields or change aspects of the interface (like the meaning of a field) it is incredibly more disruptive than simply adding new fields. i.e. For a U.I. don't so much make changes to it, rather add to it. Totally redefining a look and feel will have huge repercussions and add a lot of cost outside of the development arena. Just look at how much a change in a word processor can impact an organization. No, not all your end users are as smart as you. On big projects, programmers, it isn't all about you!
And of course the bigger the system is, the more expensive
Blame that on the store policy not the payment mechanism.
not if it is placed in a sandbox like blackberry is proposing with their new apps for iphone and android.
Not every college grad has the talent to be a plumber, carpenter, or electrician, either. Doesn't anyone ever stop to think that 4 years of apprenticeship is pretty much the same as 4 years of college? In fact most trades require some college courses as part of the apprenticeship these days. That is why a journeyman plumber, carpenter, millwright, electrician, etc can do their job competently, if not well from the beginning of most any job they show up to. Intelligence and how it is used is manifest differently in different people.
Sure an IT worker (or other college grad) might do 'OK' with carpentry or electrical if shown what to do; and after a few years of constant work or practice can approach what a journeyman can do. But attitudes that college grads are superior intellects compared to a tradesman help explain the scads of 'Home Improvement Gone Wrong' 'reality' shows (not to be confused with the shows where guys fix contractor's mistakes... mostly the bad contractors aren't journeymen either). Don't mistake people not being interested in science or accounting as a lack of intelligence. While not across the board, I would warrant that many journeymen tradespeople could learn how to do IT work if given a few years instruction too. Maybe like if they had taken 4 years of college in IT if they had been interested in the first place.
No I'm not a tradesman. But I have worked with many when I used to work in chemical/process engineering. Most I worked with were very smart and talented. As much as we think of different sciences as being specialized, requiring years of college training, tradesmen specialize as much. The only difference is how and where those learned skills and knowledge is applied. And yes, there are people who may not have the intelligence or critical thinking skills required to go to college... but often people who lack that level of intelligence wouldn't make a good tradesman either.
e.g. email me your phone number and I'll call you. oops need to write it down before opening the phone app. just an example. same for bbm or text.
Naive. It's like gas stations. The all have the same price. In practice they all strive for the highest price they can get, not the lowest.
The price producers charge for things does not hinge completely on how much it costs to make. This is especially true for things that are cheap to make. Just because something costs pennies to make doesn't mean it will be sold for pennies. Ever heard the phrase, "charge what the market will bear?" And if in 30 years people in North America can't afford to buy stuff (due to automation and globalization), guaranteed somewhere in the world someone will be able to.
Personally I grow the raw material for my plastic. Then I bury it in the earth and let the weight of the overburden compress it a while... say a few million years... then I dig it back up and reprocess it into a form of carbon which I can synthesize into plastic. It is time consuming but I don't need petroleum for it. Once I can find a way to make it economical I'll commercialize it.
Hey retard, honey bees raised by bee keepers aren't the only things that pollinate our food crops. In fact they're not even the best at it. Commercial honey bees can't do it alone Any excuse to suck the corporate cock, eh? Jeezuz, give it a rest!
Sure, and I have only one device that I ever use, so that keychain program works great. And hell, a keychain program is better than writing them all down since it writes them down for you! I would be willing to bet that if sites forced you to have a unique password for each place, people would use less sites. If you make things hard to use, people won't use them.
How about using some of Regan's star wars technology? Not to blow stuff up, but to give it a hard push with powerful lasers or xray beams. Push the small stuff into a degrading orbit to burn up in the atmosphere. It would be easier to target the small stuff like since you don't have to be close to it to give it a nudge. Once the little pieces are cleaned up, they can go after the less prevalent bigger pieces.
And this is not you:
Even in application developers, I prefer someone who can think like an architect. They will produce more robust code that lasts/is relevant longer, that is more extensible and capable of integrating with other systems if needed. Even in smaller applications this is important. If you can't think like an architect, you won't be able to write this kind of code.