Forums like this are not the target of the law and you know it. Don't blow this up into something more than it is. No one is going to be targeted on Slashdot regardless of age.
Pointing out where a good product needs further development improvement is not FUD. Denying that this is a weak area in Linux is just sticking your head in the sand.
And I'm not a Mac user, but Mac had essentially mastered multiple displays at least by 1989 when I first used one. Even back then it was very slick in that you can drag the second monitor anywhere in relation to the first and it just worked. Microsoft didn't have this until just recently and I still see the occasional problem (like video playback not working on a second monitor).
If faux meat tastes good and is cheaper to produce, THEN it's time to say goodbye to real meat.
I would say it would just come down to cheaper to produce. Take a look at todays beef. Fed on corn as this fattens them up the quickest and little if any exercise. Meat tastes ok until you taste free range grass fed beef (the way they used to do it).
Free range grass fed is WAY tastier but people dont buy it because it costs twice as much. It costs more because corn fed cows hit the weight requirements in 9 months instead of the two years for the natural way.
I wonder how much consumer acceptance this will have. I'm all for it (guilt free snow leopard sandwich here I come!), but people don't like 'fake' food. Look at all the bullshit flying out of the rumor machine about genetically modified foods.
Then again take a look at Bacon Bits. Most packages of bacon bits have no real meat in them whatsoever. You have to look for the real stuff, and the labels are confusing - the only way to tell for sure is to read the ingredients.
Re:PyPy - crashing and burning with "agile".
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. Which is why requirements definition is THE most important part of development, yet for some reason is a process absolutely ignored by the majority of developers.
I would also add that even more disheartening (from experience as a project leader) is the software lead assuming he is smarter than everyone else including the systems lead and the customer, ignoring the requirements and writing what he believed the solution should be. Needless to say, three years after delivery we are still trying to undo the damage he did and get it working properly.
The software implementation of waterlfall process was never intended to be purely iterative. This clearly does not work. The intent of the software waterfall process is exactly as I described without having to invent stupid cutesy monikers and pretend it is something new.
You seem to have bad experiences with requirements.
A good requirement does *not* dictate the implementation method unless there is a really good reason to do it. Typically requirements should only list what needs to be done, not how to do it.
If you have no idea what needs to be done and can't list your requirements, then you have a problem and shouldn't even start the program.
What I said was that it got you to start your coding to make sure your concepts will actually work - BEFORE you blow your budget out because it turns out you can't do something as originally intended.
This is implementation. There must be *some* known method to meet the requirement before you start coding. If you don't know your concept will work then that is a development risk but handled outside of requirements. Yes you would code up a prototype first, but not before your requirements are defined and definitely not before the program starts.
Re:Methodology fads
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's the point when the process needs to back off and let stuff happen.
If you think you can just ignore all the design work when you start coding I'm afraid you are not going to be very successful. You seem to have a 'go away and I'll get you the answer' approach which is the same as throw it over the wall.
Good developers need to learn how to work cooperatively in teams. Too many times I see people that *could* be good developers but have this isolationist attitude and dont want to be involved in the big picture.
Waterfall-ish approaches ought to be iterative. I agree. Enough phase-gating, Change-boards, and weight of documentation, however, and it becomes infeasible to go backwards up the chain
Waterfall is iterative. If your company implements it stupidly then thats not the fault of the process model, just your implementation of it. Each gate does not require 100% completion of the current phase before starting the next phase, you just need to complete enough to reduce the risk of proceeding. Good guidelies are PDR you need 60% of high risk design completed, CDR 80%.
Waterfall asks for LOTS of decisions to be made LONG before the last responsible moment.
No, noly the high risk. And if you can't decide on things like basic architecture early in the program, then you shouldn't be deciding the architecture.
CMMi and PMI advocate Waterfall processes
No they do not. They advocate documenting your process, then execute your process. The process you choose to document is irrelevant.
The idea is to start writing code now. Write the code, make sure your concepts work - and before it's been written into a budget and had time allocated to it.
Oh God. that is NOT what Rational says at all !!!!
Re:PyPy - crashing and burning with "agile".
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 1
Let's face it, software sucks. Writing software is hard.
No, *writing* software is easy. *Designing* software is hard. There are a lot of people are good at writing software that should not be let anywhere near the software design.
I'm uncertain as to what waterfall means where you work...but despite loud protestations from several developers...where I work, it means precisely the caricature that we Agile folks oppose. And it's basically mandated that a formal, pre-planned, no-iterations "waterfall" approach is used, as per the guidelines pushed by PMI and CMMI. I wish you were right...but it ain't a strawman.
This is ridiculous. And shows a lot of developers simply dont understand processes.
1) nothing in waterfall mandates that it cannot be iterative. In fact it *must* be iterative, allowing you to jump up levels as well as flow down. Thew waterfall levels simply are to be used as milestone gates so progress can be measured. Companies simply cannot work with the 'just give me unlimited funds and resources, leave me alone, and I'll get you the product sometime" approach that some so called agile developers think that is what agile is all about. Grow up thats not going to happen.
2) Agile is nothing new. It basically describes a method to work together. Other engineering disciplines have been doing this for years and it is NOT incompatible with waterfall.
3) CMMI does not mandate a specific process. It just tells you to document what you are doing, follow that process, and feed back the results to improve the process. If you want to document waterfall, agile, or pull it out of your ass as your standard process, thats fine. CMMi doesn't care as long as it is documented, everyone understands it, and results are fed back to improve the process.
Re:Methodology fads
on
Becoming Agile
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That is a "throw it over the wall" approach which time and countless failed programs have shown *DOES NOT WORK*.
Well current solar panels that people can buy are pretty inefficient, 20% max and often far less than that maybe even 5% for the cheap stuff. Pretty sure Prius didn't put top of the line solar panels in as it only runs a fan as you say.
When solar panels get more efficient - labs are producing 40%+ efficiency now, this idea will be more credible to implement but not now.
Actually I could argue that water itself isn't wet - it just makes things wet. This is because the definition of wet is 'to be covered or soaked with a liquid such as water'.
I read the article. It is an opinion piece written by an environmental group. Not that its all wrong, but it is biased and doesn't actually state what the subsidy is if any.
Why is it cheaper in Ontario? We are effectively half hydro and half nuclear. Once the infrastructure is built, the continuing costs to operate and generate electricity is among the lowest of any generating source. Thats why Ontario has cheap electricity compared to regions that primarily burn oil or natural gas.
Stop telling me what I believe. Just because I expressed the thought that recharging an electric car via solar for free was a nice idea, doesn't mean I think capitalism is evil. Get your head out of your ass.
Look at the electric motor efficiency curve, now look at the rpm that the drop off occurs at. A combustion engine cant even reach those rpms where the electric motor efficiency drops.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you regularly track down 8 year old girls on the internet so you can talk to them about movies and drugs?
Forums like this are not the target of the law and you know it. Don't blow this up into something more than it is. No one is going to be targeted on Slashdot regardless of age.
Pointing out where a good product needs further development improvement is not FUD. Denying that this is a weak area in Linux is just sticking your head in the sand.
And I'm not a Mac user, but Mac had essentially mastered multiple displays at least by 1989 when I first used one. Even back then it was very slick in that you can drag the second monitor anywhere in relation to the first and it just worked. Microsoft didn't have this until just recently and I still see the occasional problem (like video playback not working on a second monitor).
What's DARPA?? What was your previous question 'what's that big round thing between me and the couch?'
If faux meat tastes good and is cheaper to produce, THEN it's time to say goodbye to real meat.
I would say it would just come down to cheaper to produce. Take a look at todays beef. Fed on corn as this fattens them up the quickest and little if any exercise. Meat tastes ok until you taste free range grass fed beef (the way they used to do it).
Free range grass fed is WAY tastier but people dont buy it because it costs twice as much. It costs more because corn fed cows hit the weight requirements in 9 months instead of the two years for the natural way.
I wonder how much consumer acceptance this will have. I'm all for it (guilt free snow leopard sandwich here I come!), but people don't like 'fake' food. Look at all the bullshit flying out of the rumor machine about genetically modified foods.
Then again take a look at Bacon Bits. Most packages of bacon bits have no real meat in them whatsoever. You have to look for the real stuff, and the labels are confusing - the only way to tell for sure is to read the ingredients.
Agreed. Which is why requirements definition is THE most important part of development, yet for some reason is a process absolutely ignored by the majority of developers.
I would also add that even more disheartening (from experience as a project leader) is the software lead assuming he is smarter than everyone else including the systems lead and the customer, ignoring the requirements and writing what he believed the solution should be. Needless to say, three years after delivery we are still trying to undo the damage he did and get it working properly.
Waterfall does NOT imply linear. It is only assumed to be linear by people trying to prove other processes are better.
Iterative waterfall is a good approach used by thousands of companies.
The software implementation of waterlfall process was never intended to be purely iterative. This clearly does not work. The intent of the software waterfall process is exactly as I described without having to invent stupid cutesy monikers and pretend it is something new.
P.Yes I have. For years, starting with Rational Rose, then ReqPro, ClearCase, ClearQuest, SoDA... I was using Rational long before IBM bought them.
You seem to have bad experiences with requirements.
A good requirement does *not* dictate the implementation method unless there is a really good reason to do it. Typically requirements should only list what needs to be done, not how to do it.
If you have no idea what needs to be done and can't list your requirements, then you have a problem and shouldn't even start the program.
What I said was that it got you to start your coding to make sure your concepts will actually work - BEFORE you blow your budget out because it turns out you can't do something as originally intended.
This is implementation. There must be *some* known method to meet the requirement before you start coding. If you don't know your concept will work then that is a development risk but handled outside of requirements. Yes you would code up a prototype first, but not before your requirements are defined and definitely not before the program starts.
That's the point when the process needs to back off and let stuff happen.
If you think you can just ignore all the design work when you start coding I'm afraid you are not going to be very successful. You seem to have a 'go away and I'll get you the answer' approach which is the same as throw it over the wall.
Good developers need to learn how to work cooperatively in teams. Too many times I see people that *could* be good developers but have this isolationist attitude and dont want to be involved in the big picture.
First, it has nothing to do with budgets. Most companies you cannot even assign employees to a project without having a budget.
Second, you need to start your requirements first before coding. Without requirements, what are you going to code?
Waterfall-ish approaches ought to be iterative. I agree. Enough phase-gating, Change-boards, and weight of documentation, however, and it becomes infeasible to go backwards up the chain
Waterfall is iterative. If your company implements it stupidly then thats not the fault of the process model, just your implementation of it. Each gate does not require 100% completion of the current phase before starting the next phase, you just need to complete enough to reduce the risk of proceeding. Good guidelies are PDR you need 60% of high risk design completed, CDR 80%.
Waterfall asks for LOTS of decisions to be made LONG before the last responsible moment.
No, noly the high risk. And if you can't decide on things like basic architecture early in the program, then you shouldn't be deciding the architecture.
CMMi and PMI advocate Waterfall processes
No they do not. They advocate documenting your process, then execute your process. The process you choose to document is irrelevant.
The idea is to start writing code now. Write the code, make sure your concepts work - and before it's been written into a budget and had time allocated to it.
Oh God. that is NOT what Rational says at all !!!!
Let's face it, software sucks. Writing software is hard.
No, *writing* software is easy. *Designing* software is hard. There are a lot of people are good at writing software that should not be let anywhere near the software design.
In fact, I'm still trying to see one Agile practise that is unique and couldn't be applied to any other project:
And far too often, I've seen Agile used as an excuse for cowboy coding and sheer laziness in producing any documentation
When you've done that kind of project, come back and complain about PMI's methodology.
An excellent response. FINALLY someone who understands correct methodology. Too bad you responded as AC, I'd mod you to the roof.
I'm uncertain as to what waterfall means where you work...but despite loud protestations from several developers...where I work, it means precisely the caricature that we Agile folks oppose. And it's basically mandated that a formal, pre-planned, no-iterations "waterfall" approach is used, as per the guidelines pushed by PMI and CMMI. I wish you were right...but it ain't a strawman.
This is ridiculous. And shows a lot of developers simply dont understand processes.
1) nothing in waterfall mandates that it cannot be iterative. In fact it *must* be iterative, allowing you to jump up levels as well as flow down. Thew waterfall levels simply are to be used as milestone gates so progress can be measured. Companies simply cannot work with the 'just give me unlimited funds and resources, leave me alone, and I'll get you the product sometime" approach that some so called agile developers think that is what agile is all about. Grow up thats not going to happen.
2) Agile is nothing new. It basically describes a method to work together. Other engineering disciplines have been doing this for years and it is NOT incompatible with waterfall.
3) CMMI does not mandate a specific process. It just tells you to document what you are doing, follow that process, and feed back the results to improve the process. If you want to document waterfall, agile, or pull it out of your ass as your standard process, thats fine. CMMi doesn't care as long as it is documented, everyone understands it, and results are fed back to improve the process.
That is a "throw it over the wall" approach which time and countless failed programs have shown *DOES NOT WORK*.
Well current solar panels that people can buy are pretty inefficient, 20% max and often far less than that maybe even 5% for the cheap stuff. Pretty sure Prius didn't put top of the line solar panels in as it only runs a fan as you say.
When solar panels get more efficient - labs are producing 40%+ efficiency now, this idea will be more credible to implement but not now.
As far as solar powered carports go, check out Dells facility: http://dvice.com/archives/2009/10/dells-solar-pow.php
So you think it is socialist and evil because it is government run?
I guess the public schools, police and justice system is also socialist. Unless you like the idea of competitive bidding to buy the judge.
Actually I could argue that water itself isn't wet - it just makes things wet. This is because the definition of wet is 'to be covered or soaked with a liquid such as water'.
I read the article. It is an opinion piece written by an environmental group. Not that its all wrong, but it is biased and doesn't actually state what the subsidy is if any.
Why is it cheaper in Ontario? We are effectively half hydro and half nuclear. Once the infrastructure is built, the continuing costs to operate and generate electricity is among the lowest of any generating source. Thats why Ontario has cheap electricity compared to regions that primarily burn oil or natural gas.
Electric cars and solar panels are myths?
Stop telling me what I believe. Just because I expressed the thought that recharging an electric car via solar for free was a nice idea, doesn't mean I think capitalism is evil. Get your head out of your ass.
Nonsense.
Take a look at the following chart: http://www.fastelectrics.com/elecmotorbasics.htm
Look at the electric motor efficiency curve, now look at the rpm that the drop off occurs at. A combustion engine cant even reach those rpms where the electric motor efficiency drops.