Re:Neither necessary nor sufficient
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
1) deciding what you want to build, and deciding exactly (i.e., good specs);
Too often, I've stumbled across over-specified systems that, as a result, are delivered incredibly late. And then, because of time constraints, the whole project is de-scoped and bodged work-arounds are built so that functionality can be 'added later'.
At the design stage, politics often slows things down. I prefer the continuous approach: When you have enough design, start coding.
Re:Capability Maturity Model
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
Where I have implemented Scrum, I have found quite remarkable improvements in overall productivity. It must be done properly, you need to get buy-in from developers. As always, there are always developers who think that their (tried and trusted [and trusted always to be wrong] finger in the air estimates) methods are best.
And those companies who claim CMM Level 3+ with whom I have worked, have invariably proved to be the worst at delivery. Same for those who claim ISO9002 or whatever, it's usually a joke process.
Actually, it's the favourite trick of France. Speech of Chris Huhne MEP to European Commission:
"If you look at the latest single market scoreboard (2004), France is the worst EU member state for directives that are overdue by more than two years. It has 9 overdue, more than twice the number of Germany or Britain.
France also has the longest delay of any EU member state in implementing directives after their deadline, with an average of 14 months, more than double the time of the UK, Sweden, Finland or Denmark.
And France has the worst record of any member state when it comes to open infringement cases for breach of EU law: 220 cases at the last count compared with 200 in Italy, 136 in Germany and 121 in Britain."
Not only have they ignored the EP, they have ignored the EP's Conference of Presidents; the European Council; other Commissioners; the express will of at least 6 national parliaments; constant representation by, for example, the body representing SMEs (11 million businesses employing 70 million people) and any number of MEPs; the legal committee (JURI); the normal processes and procedures concerning directives; and precedent.
It is simply the willfulness of one man (the Irish rep McCreevy peeping out of Sir Billy's pocket) and the Commission president negating any form of democratic will.
You can't always blame the USPTO. Certain judgements haven't helped. For example in 2002 the CAFC ruled that the PTO had incorrectly rejected two applications for "obviousness," arguing that if an examiner rejects an application using "general knowledge," that knowledge "must be articulated and placed on the record." According to the then deputy commissioner Esther Kepplinger, this meant "we can't reject something just because it's stupid."
Sheesh. Thomas Crapper did exist and his company still exists. He didn't invent the WC but improved upon it (even the Aztecs had flushing toilets).
Read my link - and from Snopes: "But although Thomas Crapper may not have been a man of importance to his contemporaries, he was indeed a real person, a sanitary engineer in 19th century London who ran his own plumbing concern, who took out several patents on plumbing-related devices, and whose name can still be spotted on manhole covers around London."
Not only that Thomas Crapper got four royal warrants. I read a book about him years ago. Amongst other things he tested his products thoroughly (something a lot of s/w developers still need to learn).
And what site is that? Oh! It's a US site trying to sell me a truck I don't want or a bank I can't use 'cos I'm in Europe accessing a.COM or.NET site...
As data is NEVER collected about how frequent or serious or costly are incidents, there's absolutly nothing you can use to do any real risk calculus.
That's what Operational Risk systems do. Basel II (the 'capital accord' for financial organizations, a much more comprehensive SOX, if you like), expects three years data collection from which you can start to make quantatitive risk assessments. Basel II kicks in end of 2006 (by which time, you are supposed to have already collected 3 years data if I remember correctly).
Looks to me like vapourware. Hardly any info, pictures tooled up with Photoshop (or whatever). No address or phone number, just a one address email. Is it a 'skam' (as we might say auf Deutsch)?
Actually, a MORI poll considered Anthony Eden the worst. MT has an entry at number 3 in the 2003 List of "100 Worst Britons" (sponsored by Channel Four and also voted for by the public).
But I'm sanguine, another 25 years and the majority of academic reports and the public will agree with me.
...software is NOT patentable as shown by abstraction physics"...
JHC, what a crappy article! It's full of spelling mistakes and gobbleygook like:
"There is an identifiable and definable 'physics of abstraction' (abstraction physics), an identification of what is required in order to make and use abstractions."
You do the s/w world a disservice with that link, IMHO.
It says absolutely nothing. The number of (useless) people I interviewed from CMM5 companies whilst I was based in India proved to me that their CMM certs were an illusory wallpapering solely to impress ignorant Western purchasers.
The only thing I can find is the Statement on Technology Standards of 15 Feb. They don't mention DHCP but rack up the FUD by mentioning 'government mandated standards' stifling interoperability. The EU is expecting Open Orgs to create the (free from royalty) standards and the EU would then use such standards (which doesn't sound to me like they're stifling the process).
Two and a half years ago, in June 2002, European heads of state adopted the eEurope Action Plan 2005 at the Seville summit. It calls on the European Commission "to issue an agreed interoperability framework to support the
delivery of pan-European eGovernment services to
citizens and enterprises". This framework would
address information content and recommend technical policies and specifications to help connect public administration information systems across the EU. The Action Plan also stipulated that the Framework would "be based on open standards and encourage the use of open source software".
The blurb goes on:
To attain interoperability in the context of
pan-European eGovernment services, guidance
needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents
must have in order to be considered an open
standard:
- The standard is adopted and will be
maintained by a not-for-profit organisation,
and its ongoing development occurs on the
basis of an open decision-making procedure
available to all interested parties (consensus
or majority decision etc.).
- The standard has been published and the
standard specification document is available
either freely or at a nominal charge. It must
be permissible to all to copy, distribute and
use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
- The intellectual property - i.e. patents
possibly present - of (parts of) the standard
is made irrevocably available on a royalty free
basis.
This approach was adopted by the parliament in April 2004 (nearly 11 months ago). And only now are BSA making noises?
Seems to me, that as the BSA is a front for software patent pressure that they have released this letter to muddy the waters after the (almost) non-software-patent decision taken by the EU Thursday.
Slashdot Mirror
1) deciding what you want to build, and deciding exactly (i.e., good specs);
Too often, I've stumbled across over-specified systems that, as a result, are delivered incredibly late. And then, because of time constraints, the whole project is de-scoped and bodged work-arounds are built so that functionality can be 'added later'.
At the design stage, politics often slows things down. I prefer the continuous approach: When you have enough design, start coding.
Where I have implemented Scrum, I have found quite remarkable improvements in overall productivity. It must be done properly, you need to get buy-in from developers. As always, there are always developers who think that their (tried and trusted [and trusted always to be wrong] finger in the air estimates) methods are best.
And those companies who claim CMM Level 3+ with whom I have worked, have invariably proved to be the worst at delivery. Same for those who claim ISO9002 or whatever, it's usually a joke process.
Stream it over the Net...
Actually, it's the favourite trick of France. Speech of Chris Huhne MEP to European Commission:
"If you look at the latest single market scoreboard (2004), France is the worst EU member state for directives that are overdue by more than two years. It has 9 overdue, more than twice the number of Germany or Britain.
France also has the longest delay of any EU member state in implementing directives after their deadline, with an average of 14 months, more than double the time of the UK, Sweden, Finland or Denmark.
And France has the worst record of any member state when it comes to open infringement cases for breach of EU law: 220 cases at the last count compared with 200 in Italy, 136 in Germany and 121 in Britain."
Not only have they ignored the EP, they have ignored the EP's Conference of Presidents; the European Council; other Commissioners; the express will of at least 6 national parliaments; constant representation by, for example, the body representing SMEs (11 million businesses employing 70 million people) and any number of MEPs; the legal committee (JURI); the normal processes and procedures concerning directives; and precedent.
It is simply the willfulness of one man (the Irish rep McCreevy peeping out of Sir Billy's pocket) and the Commission president negating any form of democratic will.
You can't always blame the USPTO. Certain judgements haven't helped. For example in 2002 the CAFC ruled that the PTO had incorrectly rejected two applications for "obviousness," arguing that if an examiner rejects an application using "general knowledge," that knowledge "must be articulated and placed on the record." According to the then deputy commissioner Esther Kepplinger, this meant "we can't reject something just because it's stupid."
A possible US$15bn is not a paper cut even by M$ standards.
Sheesh. Thomas Crapper did exist and his company still exists. He didn't invent the WC but improved upon it (even the Aztecs had flushing toilets).
Read my link - and from Snopes: "But although Thomas Crapper may not have been a man of importance to his contemporaries, he was indeed a real person, a sanitary engineer in 19th century London who ran his own plumbing concern, who took out several patents on plumbing-related devices, and whose name can still be spotted on manhole covers around London."
Grammar? It was spelling. In any case, is it too much to ask an editor to be able to spell correctly?
Not only that Thomas Crapper got four royal warrants. I read a book about him years ago. Amongst other things he tested his products thoroughly (something a lot of s/w developers still need to learn).
Jesus... if you're browsing to that rabidly right-wing redneck bunch of tripe site - you get what you deserve!
Ah... the old 80/20 rule!
And what site is that? Oh! It's a US site trying to sell me a truck I don't want or a bank I can't use 'cos I'm in Europe accessing a .COM or .NET site...
And if it's cable or satellite, your subscription PLUS all those ads make a very nice (practically tax exempt) profit for Murdoch...
Why is OCTAVE an enlightening read for ex-employees of t-mobile?
As data is NEVER collected about how frequent or serious or costly are incidents, there's absolutly nothing you can use to do any real risk calculus.
That's what Operational Risk systems do. Basel II (the 'capital accord' for financial organizations, a much more comprehensive SOX, if you like), expects three years data collection from which you can start to make quantatitive risk assessments. Basel II kicks in end of 2006 (by which time, you are supposed to have already collected 3 years data if I remember correctly).
Ah, hidden in the grey area. Didn't see that!
Looks to me like vapourware. Hardly any info, pictures tooled up with Photoshop (or whatever). No address or phone number, just a one address email. Is it a 'skam' (as we might say auf Deutsch)?
Actually, a MORI poll considered Anthony Eden the worst. MT has an entry at number 3 in the 2003 List of "100 Worst Britons" (sponsored by Channel Four and also voted for by the public).
But I'm sanguine, another 25 years and the majority of academic reports and the public will agree with me.
...software is NOT patentable as shown by abstraction physics"...
JHC, what a crappy article! It's full of spelling mistakes and gobbleygook like:
"There is an identifiable and definable 'physics of abstraction' (abstraction physics), an identification of what is required in order to make and use abstractions."
You do the s/w world a disservice with that link, IMHO.
...and Maggie Thatcher was a chemist. Look where that got us. I bet all my karma points she'll eventually be denoted the worst PM of the 20th century.
It says absolutely nothing. The number of (useless) people I interviewed from CMM5 companies whilst I was based in India proved to me that their CMM certs were an illusory wallpapering solely to impress ignorant Western purchasers.
Or is it 25 (bananas)?
The only thing I can find is the Statement on Technology Standards of 15 Feb. They don't mention DHCP but rack up the FUD by mentioning 'government mandated standards' stifling interoperability. The EU is expecting Open Orgs to create the (free from royalty) standards and the EU would then use such standards (which doesn't sound to me like they're stifling the process).
Two and a half years ago, in June 2002, European heads of state adopted the eEurope Action Plan 2005 at the Seville summit. It calls on the European Commission "to issue an agreed interoperability framework to support the delivery of pan-European eGovernment services to citizens and enterprises". This framework would address information content and recommend technical policies and specifications to help connect public administration information systems across the EU. The Action Plan also stipulated that the Framework would "be based on open standards and encourage the use of open source software".
The blurb goes on:
To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:
- The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
- The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
- The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis.
This approach was adopted by the parliament in April 2004 (nearly 11 months ago). And only now are BSA making noises?
Seems to me, that as the BSA is a front for software patent pressure that they have released this letter to muddy the waters after the (almost) non-software-patent decision taken by the EU Thursday.