Two companies doesn't equal two cars. FTA: "Between them, Fisker, at $529 million, and Tesla, at $465 million, have secured nearly $1 billion to jump-start production of their cars." Fisker and Tesla are two separate companies.
Why would you assume a DIY degree came with any more experience than a college degree. "I read a book on Java 4 years ago and did the example problems." doesn't equate to 4 years of Java experience.
... read books like Peopleware and Slack by Tom DeMarco (and Timothy Lister on the former), so you can learn to recognize when you are working at a company that will suck your soul right out of you. Repetitive stress on the mind will turn you into a bitter, old cynic.
Like DeMarco often says in his books, management is hard. Maybe you need to ask rather than preach. Ask your developers how they would improve quality. Maybe you're getting an eye roll when preaching "regression testing, unit testing, and version control", because the quality problems are occurring in analysis and design.
"Should be embarrassed!" comments obviously come from stupidity. Is there any way we can color-code such contributors? The kids in the special needs classes (both below and above the average) are already being singled out for attention. Obviously if some kids fall into this category, there must be a wide range of intelligence in between. Sometimes trying your best will only get you a C. Sometimes the A students can't figure out how to make a lamp.
... bad management. We start at the top with the stupidity of standardized testing and it trickles down into individual school stupidity. It's the race to average! At least, we will reclaim the arts as the domain of the privileged.:-(
I wouldn't be surprised if there's an announcement next year that the high-end phones will be running Linux as well. Microsoft hasn't exactly been a good choice in embedded operating systems.
You're consistently wrong, but not consistent in your arguments. You totally failed to address my logical fallacy comment by changing tact and trying to force opinions as truths. You ignore the whole subsidies argument until it fits your view. You change the employment terms in the environmental discussion to some weird rant against hippies. (BTW, my parents are too old to have been hippies, I do know how to live off the land, and I have done farm labor.) You went totally bizarre in the response to the "trickle-out" comment. I don't see how we can blame the off-shoring of jobs on corrupt governments in (e.g.) Africa.
People take government subsidies as an article of faith for R&D but nobody can ever point out a single technology or product that would never have happened except for the government stepping in.
This argument is a logical fallacy. There are a lot of technologies that have come into existence due to government funding (which is why I assume you worded your argument this way), and to suppose that they would have found other funding sources is pure fantasy.
The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be easily tapped for our transportation fuel needs.
If they can be easily tapped, then why haven't they already been tapped? Natural gas technology for cars is very old and proven. Natural gas mining has been going on for many years. Fracking is expensive. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11243/1170956-28.stm
If green energy was economically superior, it would be kicking the butts of all of the established energy companies and the private sector would be rushing in to invest without the need for any government subsidies.
Environmental quality doesn't mean much if you're out of work
It sure makes it a lot easier to live off the land. Unpolluted water and air means you can sustain yourself outside of the boundaries of civilization. Even in cities, it's nice to have clean air and water and freedom from disease. Of course lassez-faire attitudes are what got us into this economic situation, as money to rich has trickled out (not down) to countries that aren't as concerned with environmental quality and working conditions.
As the information "services" team at work continues to use Microsoft tools that put out non-conforming javascript, I need to see that category. Oh wait! IE wins hands down! >;->
Microsoft didn't use patent and copyright laws to abuse it's monopoly position in the 80s and 90s; it used market position to eliminate choice from consumers. This is clearly stated in the court documents. To say that competition exists in the form of the Free Software movement is pure folly. Look at the current PC market share. Microsoft still holds a monopoly position, that provides it with an applications barrier to entry. You would think that a free operating system of comparable or better quality would wipe out any non-free competition, but Linux has failed to gain a foothold in the consumer PC space. Big companies have and still do support Linux, so it's not a little guy against the big guy fight.
Smart phones and tablets might be showing a crack in Microsoft's armor, but it would be hard to argue that they would be running non-Microsoft operating systems without government antitrust action. Without government antitrust action against IBM, Microsoft would never have been born (along with the IBM PC (at least as an open platform)).
For the most part, often. According to the data Capers Jones has presented, contracted software work will be produced at about twice the rate of in-house work. It's not always true and it doesn't mean a company could run on only external workers. There is the domain knowledge aspect that pretty much requires in-house nurturing, otherwise the job could probably be handled by off the shelf software.
Antitrust laws should not exist, but that's a larger discussion of why government shouldn't be allowed in business and money in the first place.
If a company has enough scale to undercut its competition, the government is then protecting the competition, it's not protecting the consumer with anti-trust laws, because the government then protects consumers from lower prices.
This case calls bullshit on your statements. Consumers didn't benefit from the death of personal computing choices. Price an IBM PC (or clone) against a consumer friendly system in the '80s (Commodore, Atari, Coleco, etc.); you see a sharp decrease in affordable computers by 1994. How did Microsoft's monopoly benefit consumers? Look at the viable operating system technology back then; OS/2 and Amiga were clearly better than Windows. Windows today still hasn't met all of the vapor promised with "Cairo". How has that benefited consumers?
The simplest solution to climate change would be to eliminate half of the world's population. As the majority of the population is not the super-rich, such a policy of climate change prevention could be targeted at only the poor, and therefore opposing climate change could be embraced by the right.;-)
If that's true then the affected parties should contact the USA DOJ. Preferably while the Democratic Party still holds the White House; if they catch it in transition, we could see another remedy (Judge Jackson ruling) turned into a slap on the wrist (Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruling) again.
Yes, and function points are a much better metric than lines of code.
A good metrics program shouldn't target individual developers, otherwise it won't last or be viable. I don't think most people choose to be dead weight, but they might be misplaced. This is what makes good management hard.
To get back on topic, most young developers would benefit from mentoring by senior developers, and it can be a two way street in the face of new technology. If the corporate climate is short-term cost driven, mentoring will fail, because the senior developers will know that they are just training their way into a pink slip.
"There is probably no hope of changing the view that Wall Street takes of treating investment in people as an expense. But companies that play this game will suffer in the long run. The converse is also true: Companies that manage their investment sensibly will prosper in the long run." - Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister from "Peopleware"
Short term thinking will get you short term results. "You get what you pay for" comes into play. Software development is about knowledge application, and while you can replace the language knowledge easily, you can't replace the application domain knowledge easily. Are your programmers just data entry, or are they actually applying knowledge?
Most of the younger guys put in more hours, because they need more time to do the same job. They haven't accumulated the wisdom required to minimize the mistakes.
I used to have a manager who praised one of our young developers for getting code written quickly. He'd say things in meetings like, "or I could give it to Joe and he'd have it done in a day!" Meanwhile, the experienced developers are sitting around thinking, "He'll get it done in a day, and we'll be finding errors in it for months."
Slashdot Mirror
Two companies doesn't equal two cars. FTA: "Between them, Fisker, at $529 million, and Tesla, at $465 million, have secured nearly $1 billion to jump-start production of their cars." Fisker and Tesla are two separate companies.
Why would you assume a DIY degree came with any more experience than a college degree. "I read a book on Java 4 years ago and did the example problems." doesn't equate to 4 years of Java experience.
... read books like Peopleware and Slack by Tom DeMarco (and Timothy Lister on the former), so you can learn to recognize when you are working at a company that will suck your soul right out of you. Repetitive stress on the mind will turn you into a bitter, old cynic.
.. is already a Microsoft store, except for the Apple stores of course. What's Microsoft going to do differently? Sell t-shirts?
Like DeMarco often says in his books, management is hard. Maybe you need to ask rather than preach. Ask your developers how they would improve quality. Maybe you're getting an eye roll when preaching "regression testing, unit testing, and version control", because the quality problems are occurring in analysis and design.
I don't know if waiting is a good idea. Sometimes companies come out of bankruptcy still saying, "if it ain't broke...".
"Should be embarrassed!" comments obviously come from stupidity. Is there any way we can color-code such contributors? The kids in the special needs classes (both below and above the average) are already being singled out for attention. Obviously if some kids fall into this category, there must be a wide range of intelligence in between. Sometimes trying your best will only get you a C. Sometimes the A students can't figure out how to make a lamp.
... bad management. We start at the top with the stupidity of standardized testing and it trickles down into individual school stupidity. It's the race to average! At least, we will reclaim the arts as the domain of the privileged. :-(
Send him to college.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Genius
I wouldn't be surprised if there's an announcement next year that the high-end phones will be running Linux as well. Microsoft hasn't exactly been a good choice in embedded operating systems.
You see? I'm consistent.
You're consistently wrong, but not consistent in your arguments. You totally failed to address my logical fallacy comment by changing tact and trying to force opinions as truths. You ignore the whole subsidies argument until it fits your view. You change the employment terms in the environmental discussion to some weird rant against hippies. (BTW, my parents are too old to have been hippies, I do know how to live off the land, and I have done farm labor.) You went totally bizarre in the response to the "trickle-out" comment. I don't see how we can blame the off-shoring of jobs on corrupt governments in (e.g.) Africa.
People take government subsidies as an article of faith for R&D but nobody can ever point out a single technology or product that would never have happened except for the government stepping in.
This argument is a logical fallacy. There are a lot of technologies that have come into existence due to government funding (which is why I assume you worded your argument this way), and to suppose that they would have found other funding sources is pure fantasy.
The United States has enormous reserves of natural gas which can be easily tapped for our transportation fuel needs.
If they can be easily tapped, then why haven't they already been tapped? Natural gas technology for cars is very old and proven. Natural gas mining has been going on for many years. Fracking is expensive. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11243/1170956-28.stm
If green energy was economically superior, it would be kicking the butts of all of the established energy companies and the private sector would be rushing in to invest without the need for any government subsidies.
You'd have to level the playing field on both sides, because oil production is heavily subsidized as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Environmental quality doesn't mean much if you're out of work
It sure makes it a lot easier to live off the land. Unpolluted water and air means you can sustain yourself outside of the boundaries of civilization. Even in cities, it's nice to have clean air and water and freedom from disease. Of course lassez-faire attitudes are what got us into this economic situation, as money to rich has trickled out (not down) to countries that aren't as concerned with environmental quality and working conditions.
http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp
As the information "services" team at work continues to use Microsoft tools that put out non-conforming javascript, I need to see that category. Oh wait! IE wins hands down! >;->
Microsoft didn't use patent and copyright laws to abuse it's monopoly position in the 80s and 90s; it used market position to eliminate choice from consumers. This is clearly stated in the court documents. To say that competition exists in the form of the Free Software movement is pure folly. Look at the current PC market share. Microsoft still holds a monopoly position, that provides it with an applications barrier to entry. You would think that a free operating system of comparable or better quality would wipe out any non-free competition, but Linux has failed to gain a foothold in the consumer PC space. Big companies have and still do support Linux, so it's not a little guy against the big guy fight.
Smart phones and tablets might be showing a crack in Microsoft's armor, but it would be hard to argue that they would be running non-Microsoft operating systems without government antitrust action. Without government antitrust action against IBM, Microsoft would never have been born (along with the IBM PC (at least as an open platform)).
For the most part, often. According to the data Capers Jones has presented, contracted software work will be produced at about twice the rate of in-house work. It's not always true and it doesn't mean a company could run on only external workers. There is the domain knowledge aspect that pretty much requires in-house nurturing, otherwise the job could probably be handled by off the shelf software.
Antitrust laws should not exist, but that's a larger discussion of why government shouldn't be allowed in business and money in the first place.
If a company has enough scale to undercut its competition, the government is then protecting the competition, it's not protecting the consumer with anti-trust laws, because the government then protects consumers from lower prices.
This case calls bullshit on your statements. Consumers didn't benefit from the death of personal computing choices. Price an IBM PC (or clone) against a consumer friendly system in the '80s (Commodore, Atari, Coleco, etc.); you see a sharp decrease in affordable computers by 1994. How did Microsoft's monopoly benefit consumers? Look at the viable operating system technology back then; OS/2 and Amiga were clearly better than Windows. Windows today still hasn't met all of the vapor promised with "Cairo". How has that benefited consumers?
The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS
Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.
Plus the 1994 consent decree should be considered as well. Microsoft didn't establish their monopoly through consumer choice.
The simplest solution to climate change would be to eliminate half of the world's population. As the majority of the population is not the super-rich, such a policy of climate change prevention could be targeted at only the poor, and therefore opposing climate change could be embraced by the right. ;-)
If that's true then the affected parties should contact the USA DOJ. Preferably while the Democratic Party still holds the White House; if they catch it in transition, we could see another remedy (Judge Jackson ruling) turned into a slap on the wrist (Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruling) again.
Bad technology generally isn't the problem; it's the people who persist in using that technology rather than embracing far superior alternatives.
That explains Windows rather nicely! :-D
Yes, and function points are a much better metric than lines of code.
A good metrics program shouldn't target individual developers, otherwise it won't last or be viable. I don't think most people choose to be dead weight, but they might be misplaced. This is what makes good management hard.
To get back on topic, most young developers would benefit from mentoring by senior developers, and it can be a two way street in the face of new technology. If the corporate climate is short-term cost driven, mentoring will fail, because the senior developers will know that they are just training their way into a pink slip.
"There is probably no hope of changing the view that Wall Street takes of treating investment in people as an expense. But companies that play this game will suffer in the long run. The converse is also true: Companies that manage their investment sensibly will prosper in the long run." - Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister from "Peopleware"
Short term thinking will get you short term results. "You get what you pay for" comes into play. Software development is about knowledge application, and while you can replace the language knowledge easily, you can't replace the application domain knowledge easily. Are your programmers just data entry, or are they actually applying knowledge?
I'd mod you up!
Most of the younger guys put in more hours, because they need more time to do the same job. They haven't accumulated the wisdom required to minimize the mistakes.
I used to have a manager who praised one of our young developers for getting code written quickly. He'd say things in meetings like, "or I could give it to Joe and he'd have it done in a day!" Meanwhile, the experienced developers are sitting around thinking, "He'll get it done in a day, and we'll be finding errors in it for months."
... tweet me a new minivan!