Then their would be all kinds of "designer phrases" - "Back off Jack!" or "You May Call Me The Smurf-King" or something equally ringer-tone intelligent
If this thing is "real", we're going to need 15 years to get things straightened out so people aren't flying drunk, teenagers aren't racing their air scooters in public air corridors, and Starbucks has a chance to start opening outlets at 10,000 feet.
According to the emails *I* get, bored housewives are not looking at blogs at all. They'd much rather meet with me when their husbands are out of town. (this internet thing is *really* something)
They need to realize that having open source as an ally will be more beneficial in the long run
Really? Why is that? Because people that weren't going to pay me anything anyways won't like me? That is beneficial? Seriously, why is this "more beneficial"?
Re:Not sure I agree with all of the article
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
Okay fine, you say tomato, I say tomahto. There are three "QA" functions as far as I'm concerned:
1. Testing/finding implementation bugs.
2. Ensuring the development and other software management processes work. This is where tools like statistical process control can provide a great deal of insight. Whether or not this is a function of Development or a specialized QA department makes little or no difference.
3. Ensuring that the result does what was intended (to your point, not necessarily what was designed). This, above all else, is the most critical in my view and should be managed by the product manager.
Not sure I agree with all of the article
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The writer talks about separating QA from the Development group. In our organization, this was a large part of the problem. First, there was a tendency for the development group to "throw it over the fence" and expect QA to find problems that the engineers couldn't be bothered to look for.
The QA staff, on the other hand, rarely had engineers of a sufficient caliber that had the insights to search for and find the most insidious problems. Not only that, they (QA) occupied the no-man's land between business users and development, understanding neither area with any clarity.
I sleep very well at night knowing I am providing a valuable service to my clients - many of then small and individual inventors who are looking at being able to actually PROFIT from their hard work BECAUSE they have a patent and not in spite of it.
GAAAAHHH!. This is pure ego-driven, self-serving nonsense. It is simply not (and should not be) enough to claim 20 years of ownership and punitive litigation simply because you got to the patent office before I did. There is very little that is so unique in the software field that somebody else has not or will not soon conceive of it.
I have independantly come up with a number of ideas that I've incorporated in my company's products. I will not waste my company's money throwing money at a patent lawyer since I'd rather reinvest the money to make my ideas better and more marketable. My company wins in the market based on OUR ideas, execution, and market strategy, not running behind lawyers and litigation.
Durn kids these days, and their conflabbed newfangled VOIP teknollergy.
Back in the day, when I was stationed overseas, the cheapest way to call home was a service that was hosted by ham radio operators. We'd call up the local ham who would transmit to a us-bound operator who would make the local call to the family. It was always weird talking to your mother to say things like "How are you doing? OVER!" all the time.
What concerns me most is that this is all done under the cloak of "preventing terrorism". There were at least three stories on NPR yesterday with the common theme of protecting us from terrorism: This "national ID card", throwing some leftist zealot lawyer in jail, and then immigration reform.
At some point we'll have to ask if this is all worth it.
First of all, I said nothing about legality, only that I believe the practice to be unethical. Second, your example is flawed. I would think it was unethical for Burger King to pay you to stand in front of McDonalds and tell everybody walking in that they should go to Burger King instead.
I smell a made-for-TV movie in the works in about 4 years.
This is the "back-in-the-happier-days" segment. Then they'll move on to a Sergey interview complaining about what an *sshole Larry was and how Larry never really contributed anything. Larry will appear withdrawn and pale, and be interviewed in a jail cell where he is serving 10 years for a drug-induced armed robbery of a Fry's Electronics. He'll bemoan his loss of stature and twitch nervously everytime Sergey's name is mentioned. Somebody gets in a car crash (or at least a disturbing fender bender).
It's simple. The competitor is trying to make money off of my success (presumably) and my trademarked name. The competitor should be entering in keywords that are related to whatever business they are in, and not using MY REGISTERED TRADEMARK. This practice is unethical whether or not it can reasonably be enforced.
In incremental projects, little attention is paid to long term performance and architectural issues. Sometimes the only honest way to correct them is thru a rewrite.
I'm not saying you can't/shouldn't reuse segments of the code, but putting lipstick on the pig doesn't solve the problem either.
This is true, but you can consider your incremental approach "phase 1" and plan for a from-scratch rebuild (of course it takes discipline to actually do it instead of continuing to hack phase 1). This way you've got a working, deployed model that the nicely architected "phase 2" can use as its base.
Slashdot Mirror
Then their would be all kinds of "designer phrases" - "Back off Jack!" or "You May Call Me The Smurf-King" or something equally ringer-tone intelligent
If this thing is "real", we're going to need 15 years to get things straightened out so people aren't flying drunk, teenagers aren't racing their air scooters in public air corridors, and Starbucks has a chance to start opening outlets at 10,000 feet.
According to the emails *I* get, bored housewives are not looking at blogs at all. They'd much rather meet with me when their husbands are out of town. (this internet thing is *really* something)
er, waist. (waste is covered in later guidelines).
Take the metal tab and insert it into the buckle. Pull tightly across your waste.
Anybody actually using open office in a, er, office? How about some real experiences with it?
Overrated? Somebody out there doesn't have much of a sense of humor.
Perhaps you should try a dating service. I understand that they can help to accomplish the same goal.
They need to realize that having open source as an ally will be more beneficial in the long run
Really? Why is that? Because people that weren't going to pay me anything anyways won't like me? That is beneficial? Seriously, why is this "more beneficial"?
Okay fine, you say tomato, I say tomahto. There are three "QA" functions as far as I'm concerned:
1. Testing/finding implementation bugs.
2. Ensuring the development and other software management processes work. This is where tools like statistical process control can provide a great deal of insight. Whether or not this is a function of Development or a specialized QA department makes little or no difference.
3. Ensuring that the result does what was intended (to your point, not necessarily what was designed). This, above all else, is the most critical in my view and should be managed by the product manager.
The writer talks about separating QA from the Development group. In our organization, this was a large part of the problem. First, there was a tendency for the development group to "throw it over the fence" and expect QA to find problems that the engineers couldn't be bothered to look for.
The QA staff, on the other hand, rarely had engineers of a sufficient caliber that had the insights to search for and find the most insidious problems. Not only that, they (QA) occupied the no-man's land between business users and development, understanding neither area with any clarity.
I sleep very well at night knowing I am providing a valuable service to my clients - many of then small and individual inventors who are looking at being able to actually PROFIT from their hard work BECAUSE they have a patent and not in spite of it.
GAAAAHHH!. This is pure ego-driven, self-serving nonsense. It is simply not (and should not be) enough to claim 20 years of ownership and punitive litigation simply because you got to the patent office before I did. There is very little that is so unique in the software field that somebody else has not or will not soon conceive of it.
I have independantly come up with a number of ideas that I've incorporated in my company's products. I will not waste my company's money throwing money at a patent lawyer since I'd rather reinvest the money to make my ideas better and more marketable. My company wins in the market based on OUR ideas, execution, and market strategy, not running behind lawyers and litigation.
Wonkavision? No, not television....Wonkavision.
Weblication? No, not web applications... Weblications.
How much you think they can get for slashdot? $400 million? Or is a quarter, used movie stub, and some pocket lint closer to the mark?
According to TFA, only 21 people actually received this thing. I've cause more damage most days just driving to work.
Next on slashdot: Bill Gates picks nose, AGAIN! Film at 11.
Durn kids these days, and their conflabbed newfangled VOIP teknollergy.
Back in the day, when I was stationed overseas, the cheapest way to call home was a service that was hosted by ham radio operators. We'd call up the local ham who would transmit to a us-bound operator who would make the local call to the family. It was always weird talking to your mother to say things like "How are you doing? OVER!" all the time.
What concerns me most is that this is all done under the cloak of "preventing terrorism". There were at least three stories on NPR yesterday with the common theme of protecting us from terrorism: This "national ID card", throwing some leftist zealot lawyer in jail, and then immigration reform.
At some point we'll have to ask if this is all worth it.
First of all, I said nothing about legality, only that I believe the practice to be unethical. Second, your example is flawed. I would think it was unethical for Burger King to pay you to stand in front of McDonalds and tell everybody walking in that they should go to Burger King instead.
So, if I create a fast food restaurant called McDonalds, serving Big Macs and use all the same colors etc, you're okay with that?
I smell a made-for-TV movie in the works in about 4 years.
This is the "back-in-the-happier-days" segment. Then they'll move on to a Sergey interview complaining about what an *sshole Larry was and how Larry never really contributed anything. Larry will appear withdrawn and pale, and be interviewed in a jail cell where he is serving 10 years for a drug-induced armed robbery of a Fry's Electronics. He'll bemoan his loss of stature and twitch nervously everytime Sergey's name is mentioned. Somebody gets in a car crash (or at least a disturbing fender bender).
It's simple. The competitor is trying to make money off of my success (presumably) and my trademarked name. The competitor should be entering in keywords that are related to whatever business they are in, and not using MY REGISTERED TRADEMARK. This practice is unethical whether or not it can reasonably be enforced.
Elektro was able to walk, talk, raise and lower his arms, turn his head and move his mouth as he spoke.
...wow, just look how far technology has progressed since then!
I would like to know of a single instance where a patented "truly useful novel algorthim" was a boon for the software industry.
Every patent I am aware of has only been used for litigation.
(oh, you must mean for the legal industry)
In incremental projects, little attention is paid to long term performance and architectural issues. Sometimes the only honest way to correct them is thru a rewrite.
I'm not saying you can't/shouldn't reuse segments of the code, but putting lipstick on the pig doesn't solve the problem either.
This is true, but you can consider your incremental approach "phase 1" and plan for a from-scratch rebuild (of course it takes discipline to actually do it instead of continuing to hack phase 1). This way you've got a working, deployed model that the nicely architected "phase 2" can use as its base.