True, the 10k RPM is indicative of larger turbines. While car-based turbines may be a bit higher (double?) than a large turbine, I can't see it being "thousands of revs per second".
Even 1 thousand revs per second would equate to 60,000 RPM's, and I seriously doubt that a small gas turbine engine would come anywhere close to that.
I could see 20k RPM, maybe 25k max, but nothing higher. Gyroscopic precession, the fact it's not going to be running in a vacuum, etc., will limit the high end speeds that are possible. For that matter, higher isn't necessarily better, as boundary layer effects, etc., will become problematic at uber-high speeds. After all, we're talking about something large enough to create a reasonable amount of power, not an academic exercise.
Ramp that up to even 2k revs per SECOND, and try and turn the car that it's mounted in... that's a LOT of force we're talking about, and if it lets go, it's not going to be pretty.
You're talking about 2 different operational modes... car travel vs. airline travel.
A jet's turbine will typically run at a constant RPM for long periods of time, whereas a car will be variable RPM and be used for (generally) more frequent, shorter duration trips. If you compare the maintenance required/performed on long-haul (transatlantic?) flights versus short-hop commuter planes (Dash 8's, etc), the transatlantic flights usually require less maintenance. Maintenance is not just about engine time, it's about past performance dynamics.
Such usage behaviour has a LOT to do with the wear and tear on the engine, and the required maintenance as a result. The absolute BEST thing you can do for a turbine engine is to start it up and never shut it down... it will last almost forever. As soon as you start cycling it, thermal expansion/contraction over time plays hell with the tolerances and causes problems.
You're also talking about 2 totally different atmospheric conditions... "ground level" vs. 30,000+ feet. That also has drastic implications with respect to longevity and capabilities. Running a piston engine at altitude will have issues with it running rich, etc. That's one of the advantages of a turbine; it compresses the air before ignition, so that the air:fuel ratios are better maintained, allowing you to get higher efficiency at altitude... in short, more thrust/distance per lbs of fuel.
If you were to put a turbine engine into the operational conditions required by a car, I still think that the turbine would require more maintenance.
Mind you, I'm also talking about existing turbine engine technology, and not taking into account any potential turbine development that could come about. For instance, taking a look at the variable vane turbo technology that Porsche has just developed that they've implemented on their new 997 turbo, the way may very well be paved to allow turbines to sustain the speed and operational temperatures required by "pump gas", etc. They were successful in taking something that typically would only work in the (relatively) low speed, low temp environment of a turbo-diesel environment and implementing it in the gasoline internal combustion environment. (It has a lot to do with the material of the turbine vanes, their size/rotational speeds, and the exhaust heat generated, etc).
My main point, though, is that as things stand right now, a piston engine is much more forgiving of poor or no maintenance, and while it may have more moving parts than a turbine, I think it's generally easier and cheaper to maintain by and for the masses.
The reason that turbines are used in airlines has NOTHING to do with maintenance... it's all about power produced, power to weight ratios, and fuel efficiency. Go take a look at the maintenance protocols for a turbine vs. piston powerplants and then get back to me.
And explain to me again why it is that most private / pleasure aircraft are powered by piston engines? Oh yeah... they're much more complex and actually DO require more maintenance. And are much more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, turbines are WAY better from a technical perspective, but realistically are not appropriate for automobiles due to their cost, complexity, fuel requirements (they DON'T run on pump gas), noise, heat generation, etc.
And exactly WHERE are you getting this whole "trouble-free" stuff from? I'm getting it from a guy who's worked on both engines for more than 30 years as a bush pilot and an AME working on everything from Beavers to Twin Otters to Turbo Beavers to Caravans to Bell Jet Rangers and LongHorns.
Depends on what you mean by "turbine". There's a big difference between a K27 and a PT6... one is a "turbo charger", the other a full-on turbine engine.
Well, it's not thousands of revs per SECOND, it's usually around 10,000 RPM (minute).
But the makeup of a turbine is much different than an typical internal combustion engine. (My dad has worked on both for over 30 years in the aircraft industry as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).
A turbine does NOT do well with constantly starting up and shutting down, it will work much better if it's just turned on and left to run forever.
If a turbine "blows up", you better run for cover. If a normal piston engine blows ub, meh, no big deal... it's all pretty well contained in that monstrous engine block and is not generally such a big deal... just expensive.
Tolerances on a turbine are much, much tighter than the piston engine. Maintenance is a MUST.
And yes, turbines are LOUD, and smelly, and generate a lot of heat, and won't do well on current pump gas.
Turbines are not yet ready for the general masses, only a select few, IMO.
And how have they NOT helped the shareware community?
I bought one of these, and now have copies of software I've never even heard of before.
When it comes time to update to the next version, who's getting the cash? Macheist? No.
People are just pissed off that they aren't sharing the profits as a percentage of the gross income. That's stupid and short-sighted.
Maybe it was the simplest arrangement to deal with in the long term? Maybe there was no guarantee that they would sell ANY of these packages, but still had to pay the devs the cash, regardless? Maybe they took all the risk for the sales/marketing? Maybe they didn't want to deal with the headaches of any future royalty payments for upgrades, etc?
How about the fact that the developers entered into the agreement and THEY seem to be happy with it, so everyone else mind their own business and quit making a stink where there isn't one?
Anyone who thinks that email is private needs a smack in the head anyway.
Hell, at this point, I'd be willing to offer the spammers money to NOT include me in their spam... it's probably cheaper than dealing with the time and effort and cash of all the anti-spam appliances, etc., I'm doing right now.
I could care less if it was extortion... it would probably be more effective for me in the long run.
Actually, I enjoy all of those benefits by using a DVR. No commercials, only the shows I want to watch, when I want to watch them.
The only time a TV is just on and running for me is in the background in my office... and I usually have it on some news channel or a movie channel. It acts like background noise for me, and I ignore it most of the time, but it makes for a nice break in work every so often.
"forcing you to sign away all your rights"... hardly... you have a choice, whether you like it or not.
Anyone with half a brain knows that their performance claims are NOT the norm, and are heavily defended and described in their SLA. But of course, it's all worded so that they aren't actually lying, they're just reporting or claiming a specific performance given specific conditions. If you're believing those "best case" numbers, then you're an idiot.
They are a business, out to make money and protect their interest. It is NOT their job, nor their responsibility, to be looking after your interests.
If you don't like it, don't sign up. If you sign up, don't be a moron and NOT read the fine print, or read their SLA. And don't think that just because you paid your $30/month that you're then somehow entitled to fuck over everyone else's performance because you want to run a whack of torrents all day, every day. If you want that kind of service, then pony up the cash for the appropriate service.
I have no time or patience for anyone who enters into a contract and then bitches about the contract afterwards. If they broke the contract, then take them to court! Oh, but wait, they HAVEN'T broken the contract, have they? You're just pissed off that you couldn't take advantage of it like you thought you could, so now you're whining about it.
I'd rather see people start fighting for more choice and lack of monopolies when it comes to ISP's.
Bullshit. Read the terms of the contract. EVERY SINGLE ONE has a clause that says that they can terminate it without cause, unless you get into higher grade Commercial contracts for longer terms for much, much more money.
You'll also find that most of them have clauses in there to deal with "abuse" of the service or network, and "abuse" is how THEY define it, not you.
To them, "abuse" could be you running Torrents 24x7 and saturating their network.
Don't kid yourself, the contract you entered into is written TOTALLY in their favour, not yours. For that matter, I bet 99.9% of the subscribers have never even read the thing, never mind understand what it says.
Sounds like you've also found a few loopholes in the oversight- which helps greatly as well. I've only had 15 years in this industry and seen nothing but "failure" from unrealistic expectations, such as the one in the original article that a large software project should have ZERO bug reports among ALL testers and users before it works. Even with your superman PM- can you say that you have had ZERO bug reports? On ANY project? Not "bugs that have been addressed". Not "bugs deemed too small to deal with". ZERO bugs. Heck, any significantly complex GUI is going to garner complaints from somebody who just wants to complain.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but of COURSE you're going to fail if you have unreasonable expectations. Duh! I've never even hinted otherwise. In fact, I don't accept those contracts that are unreasonable. It's not a "make money at all costs over the short term" proposition. In my opinion, the "CTO" (and I use that word loosely) of the project was a moron and it sounds like he was a political appointment with no clue rather than someone who actually has been there in the trenches.
I've also never said we've ever had (or expect) zero bugs. We FULLY expect to have them, (and yes, we get them plenty) but my "superman PM" knows enough to estimate for them going in, and deal with them when they arrive. Our experience has allowed us to limit the number of bugs we have, and our process allows us to mitigate the risks as best as we can, and our quality control ensures that they are handled internally as much as possible, so that the client never sees most of them.
I'm not sure what your beef is, but I was just addressing the original statement (yours, now that I look back) about how all project come in late, over budget, and don't work. Maybe the ones you've been involved in have been like that, but for ME, that's not the case. (Not saying it was your fault, etc., just your exposure)
I work in State Government- and we can't even fill the positions we have because the beancounters won't let us pay industry standard wages.
Then you're fucked right out of the gate. Sounds to me like it's pretty silly to stick around in that environment and constantly be involved with projects that do nothing but fail, unless you have no other options. In case you haven't noticed, you come off as being pretty bitter and negative. If it were me, I'd probably go find something else that more rewarding and enjoyable, as it'll drastically improve your outlook on life. Being hopeful and optimistic is SO much more fun.
Not sure what context you're talking about, but I'm talking about things from MY context, as the owner of software development and services companies. Sure, I won't be doing any $170 million dollar contracts any time soon, but I have been involved in many $100 million dollar ones.
Also, I'm not responding directly to the specific case of the story, just the parent's generalized statement regarding software projects.
When you get to be involved in a large Government project, there's not much you can do, as it takes on a life of it's own (usually, I imagine a giant ball of snakes in a very deep pit).
Wouldn't that automatically make him overbudget in any publicly traded company or government, where cost is a concern?
I think you're just taking a short/small/unrealistic view at what "cost" is. Sure, my PM might be out of the normal scale for PM's, but I can easily show business cases that justify his "extra" cost (usually less than 2% of the total project, on projects $.5 - $5 million) vs. being late, over budget, and not having something that works. And, I've never had to sell to the "bean counters". I've sold to the client's management, or champions of the project. Sure, bean counters will go over the estimates and projections and costs, and bitch about a whole bunch of stuff, but then we explain and justify those items, and it's all good. I have YET to deal with any client that didn't get it. Let's face it, if I can't sell a higher-than-normal PM to the project, then I'm not doing my job properly. I haven't had a problem doing so in the contracts we've done. And those contracts are with US/CDN Governments and banks. And we deal in very large, complex systems, predominately in globally distributed Oracle installations.
In government and publically traded companies, you don't get to pick your clients. You work with who they tell you to work with. So I guess you've found the way around it: Pick your consituents/customers carefully enough, and you won't have any significantly complex projects to worry about.
Once again, not sure what context you're talking in... I'll assume that it's the Government as client.
Don't kid yourself, governments and public companies FOR SURE have a say in who they work with. When you get right down to it, there is usually ONE GUY/GIRL that is responsible for the project, and has a huge amount to say in who gets the contract. And they generally have the skills (political) to get their way with any kind of oversight that may be in place. To think otherwise would be very naieve, IMO. I have seen sooo many examples of RFP's/contracts/requirements being worded in such a specific manner that only one particular supplier would meet the requirements, just so that the customer could be guaranteed that that supplier would be picked. (I've been on the receiving end of a few of them). I've also seen a large project broken down into many, many smaller ones so that each piece is within the "arbitrary assignment" limit, allowing the manager to authorize the contract himself, without having to go to tender or oversight.
As to the case where I'm the supplier to the client, I guess I'm just used to being at the top of the org chart of a smaller company, because I do exactly that... I pick my clients very, very carefully. As it is, I've declined probably 40% of our potential contracts over the past 2 years because of the potential risk to my company. Unless you're a monster company, like Anderson or IBM, you have to take a serious look at any project you're going to be involved in and evaluate the risk and return on investment. Even then, pick wrong, and it can kill you off. (Enron/Anderson?) And not just the financial ROI... your reputation can make or break you. Go see how well Pangaea is doing around the BC Government these days... their reputation is killing them, slowly but surely.
And it's not about picking the "easy" contracts... we enjoy pushing ourselves as much as anyone who is good at their job. I just wan
I tend to agree that any project can get two of the following: "done better, done faster, done cheaper", but I've been involved in a lot of projects where all three of "under budget, works as designed, and on time" are satisfied.
That's because I've hired one of the best, most technical project managers I've ever worked with. I pay him more than double what he made in his last job, and easily a third more than what he could get elsewhere. He is a hard-core programmer who gets project management and interacts well with clients.
A lot of my devleopers hate him, because he doesn't let their shit slide. They HAVE to do things the way he says... proper requirement/design/implementation/test docs, code reviews, etc. If not, he is 100% empowered by me to kick some ass.
We also take a lot of time to educate the client. That, to me, is the biggest problem... "stupid" clients. They don't understand software development, and don't properly equip themselves to ensure that their project will be successful. We refuse to work with any clients that are not prepared, as I've seen the nightmarish outcomes that can occur.
Sure, it seems like common sense, but common sense just ain't so common any more.
I find it interesting that they would know what accounts have weak passwords... does that mean that they are storing them in clear-text somewhere? If not, then how do they know?
The sites we build and administer only store hashes of the password, or something similarly obsfucated.
But yeah, the public-key ssh2 access previously mentioned seems like the only "proper" method for their access.
Why not just copy the file? If they're saying that the DB wasn't accessed, that has nothing to do with the copying of the file to another machine, and running it there.
Sure, I'm not saying that some of them aren't doing their own marketing... but how do you even BEGIN to think about policing that? Or determining when they are or aren't involved?
The ROI just isn't there... too much work, too many unknowns, and too little gain to be had to justify the effort, IMO.
Re:What kind of a moron buy stock from spam?
on
Spam from Taiwan
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Huh? It doesn't take much to be able to buy stock online... hell, my MOTHER can do it with her online banking.
And who the hell would buy ANYTHING from spam? Oh yeah... lots of idiots. Same goes for Nigerian scams, etc.
It's just a different product, with next to no money trail because you're only benefitting from the idiots pushing the price up.
And as to the stock scam, just what money do you follow? People are making legit purchases, of a legit stock. The only bitch is that someone OTHER than the company is marketing it to push the price up so that they can sell at a profit.
Well said... too many people lose sight of the goal, and think that all eficiency boils down to CPU cycles.
In reality, it is a compromise between many factors, including cost, flexibility, rate of change, manageability, and performance.
The only REAL requirement is that it does its job at a cost that is reasonable and sustainable to the company.
If you spend 10 times more on development and increase time to delivery in order to save a small fraction of that on hardware, you've lost.
For what it's worth, we do ALL of our development in interpreted languages, mostly Java, some PHP, Ruby on Rails, etc., and it all comes down to whatever is the best tool for the job. Very rarely do we ever come across a situation where 2 clients have needs that result in the exact same tools being used, unless it's just to use tools that we're more familiar with so that we can get the job done faster for them.
Except it's hardly ever the company itself that is doing the promotions... it's third-party people that target them and convince others, via spam, to invest in the company, which drives the prices up, which allows them to unload their own stock at a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
True, the 10k RPM is indicative of larger turbines. While car-based turbines may be a bit higher (double?) than a large turbine, I can't see it being "thousands of revs per second".
Even 1 thousand revs per second would equate to 60,000 RPM's, and I seriously doubt that a small gas turbine engine would come anywhere close to that.
I could see 20k RPM, maybe 25k max, but nothing higher. Gyroscopic precession, the fact it's not going to be running in a vacuum, etc., will limit the high end speeds that are possible. For that matter, higher isn't necessarily better, as boundary layer effects, etc., will become problematic at uber-high speeds. After all, we're talking about something large enough to create a reasonable amount of power, not an academic exercise.
Ramp that up to even 2k revs per SECOND, and try and turn the car that it's mounted in... that's a LOT of force we're talking about, and if it lets go, it's not going to be pretty.
Even the work done to date on turbine powered cars (you may find this interesting: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html ) don't go above 20,000 RPM.
That's only 333 1/3 revolutions per second... nowhere near "thousands".
That was the only point I was trying to make...
You're talking about 2 different operational modes... car travel vs. airline travel.
A jet's turbine will typically run at a constant RPM for long periods of time, whereas a car will be variable RPM and be used for (generally) more frequent, shorter duration trips. If you compare the maintenance required/performed on long-haul (transatlantic?) flights versus short-hop commuter planes (Dash 8's, etc), the transatlantic flights usually require less maintenance. Maintenance is not just about engine time, it's about past performance dynamics.
Such usage behaviour has a LOT to do with the wear and tear on the engine, and the required maintenance as a result. The absolute BEST thing you can do for a turbine engine is to start it up and never shut it down... it will last almost forever. As soon as you start cycling it, thermal expansion/contraction over time plays hell with the tolerances and causes problems.
You're also talking about 2 totally different atmospheric conditions... "ground level" vs. 30,000+ feet. That also has drastic implications with respect to longevity and capabilities. Running a piston engine at altitude will have issues with it running rich, etc. That's one of the advantages of a turbine; it compresses the air before ignition, so that the air:fuel ratios are better maintained, allowing you to get higher efficiency at altitude... in short, more thrust/distance per lbs of fuel.
If you were to put a turbine engine into the operational conditions required by a car, I still think that the turbine would require more maintenance.
Mind you, I'm also talking about existing turbine engine technology, and not taking into account any potential turbine development that could come about. For instance, taking a look at the variable vane turbo technology that Porsche has just developed that they've implemented on their new 997 turbo, the way may very well be paved to allow turbines to sustain the speed and operational temperatures required by "pump gas", etc. They were successful in taking something that typically would only work in the (relatively) low speed, low temp environment of a turbo-diesel environment and implementing it in the gasoline internal combustion environment. (It has a lot to do with the material of the turbine vanes, their size/rotational speeds, and the exhaust heat generated, etc).
My main point, though, is that as things stand right now, a piston engine is much more forgiving of poor or no maintenance, and while it may have more moving parts than a turbine, I think it's generally easier and cheaper to maintain by and for the masses.
Uhmmm... yeah. You're a moron.
The reason that turbines are used in airlines has NOTHING to do with maintenance... it's all about power produced, power to weight ratios, and fuel efficiency. Go take a look at the maintenance protocols for a turbine vs. piston powerplants and then get back to me.
And explain to me again why it is that most private / pleasure aircraft are powered by piston engines? Oh yeah... they're much more complex and actually DO require more maintenance. And are much more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, turbines are WAY better from a technical perspective, but realistically are not appropriate for automobiles due to their cost, complexity, fuel requirements (they DON'T run on pump gas), noise, heat generation, etc.
And exactly WHERE are you getting this whole "trouble-free" stuff from? I'm getting it from a guy who's worked on both engines for more than 30 years as a bush pilot and an AME working on everything from Beavers to Twin Otters to Turbo Beavers to Caravans to Bell Jet Rangers and LongHorns.
I think you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
Depends on what you mean by "turbine". There's a big difference between a K27 and a PT6... one is a "turbo charger", the other a full-on turbine engine.
Well, it's not thousands of revs per SECOND, it's usually around 10,000 RPM (minute).
But the makeup of a turbine is much different than an typical internal combustion engine. (My dad has worked on both for over 30 years in the aircraft industry as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).
A turbine does NOT do well with constantly starting up and shutting down, it will work much better if it's just turned on and left to run forever.
If a turbine "blows up", you better run for cover. If a normal piston engine blows ub, meh, no big deal... it's all pretty well contained in that monstrous engine block and is not generally such a big deal... just expensive.
Tolerances on a turbine are much, much tighter than the piston engine. Maintenance is a MUST.
And yes, turbines are LOUD, and smelly, and generate a lot of heat, and won't do well on current pump gas.
Turbines are not yet ready for the general masses, only a select few, IMO.
Who cares?
Both parties involved were happy, and they're the only ones who matter.
If they didn't like it, they didn't have to enter into the agreement.
It's not like anyone forced them to sign up for this promotion.
No.. I felt good about getting some good software at a very cheap price.
If I'd wanted to "demand more equitable compensation for the creators" I would have bought from them directly, at the increased price.
And how have they NOT helped the shareware community?
I bought one of these, and now have copies of software I've never even heard of before.
When it comes time to update to the next version, who's getting the cash? Macheist? No.
People are just pissed off that they aren't sharing the profits as a percentage of the gross income. That's stupid and short-sighted.
Maybe it was the simplest arrangement to deal with in the long term? Maybe there was no guarantee that they would sell ANY of these packages, but still had to pay the devs the cash, regardless? Maybe they took all the risk for the sales/marketing? Maybe they didn't want to deal with the headaches of any future royalty payments for upgrades, etc?
How about the fact that the developers entered into the agreement and THEY seem to be happy with it, so everyone else mind their own business and quit making a stink where there isn't one?
Cool... some place where "Blowjob Friday" might not just be a tale of lore...
Where do I sign up?
Anyone who thinks that email is private needs a smack in the head anyway.
Hell, at this point, I'd be willing to offer the spammers money to NOT include me in their spam... it's probably cheaper than dealing with the time and effort and cash of all the anti-spam appliances, etc., I'm doing right now.
I could care less if it was extortion... it would probably be more effective for me in the long run.
Actually, I enjoy all of those benefits by using a DVR. No commercials, only the shows I want to watch, when I want to watch them.
The only time a TV is just on and running for me is in the background in my office... and I usually have it on some news channel or a movie channel. It acts like background noise for me, and I ignore it most of the time, but it makes for a nice break in work every so often.
Good!
Discuss.
"forcing you to sign away all your rights"... hardly... you have a choice, whether you like it or not.
Anyone with half a brain knows that their performance claims are NOT the norm, and are heavily defended and described in their SLA. But of course, it's all worded so that they aren't actually lying, they're just reporting or claiming a specific performance given specific conditions. If you're believing those "best case" numbers, then you're an idiot.
They are a business, out to make money and protect their interest. It is NOT their job, nor their responsibility, to be looking after your interests.
If you don't like it, don't sign up. If you sign up, don't be a moron and NOT read the fine print, or read their SLA. And don't think that just because you paid your $30/month that you're then somehow entitled to fuck over everyone else's performance because you want to run a whack of torrents all day, every day. If you want that kind of service, then pony up the cash for the appropriate service.
I have no time or patience for anyone who enters into a contract and then bitches about the contract afterwards. If they broke the contract, then take them to court! Oh, but wait, they HAVEN'T broken the contract, have they? You're just pissed off that you couldn't take advantage of it like you thought you could, so now you're whining about it.
I'd rather see people start fighting for more choice and lack of monopolies when it comes to ISP's.
Bullshit. Read the terms of the contract. EVERY SINGLE ONE has a clause that says that they can terminate it without cause, unless you get into higher grade Commercial contracts for longer terms for much, much more money.
You'll also find that most of them have clauses in there to deal with "abuse" of the service or network, and "abuse" is how THEY define it, not you.
To them, "abuse" could be you running Torrents 24x7 and saturating their network.
Don't kid yourself, the contract you entered into is written TOTALLY in their favour, not yours. For that matter, I bet 99.9% of the subscribers have never even read the thing, never mind understand what it says.
It's also WAAYY easier to get on CNN or the 6PM news with a video clip.
Sounds like you've also found a few loopholes in the oversight- which helps greatly as well. I've only had 15 years in this industry and seen nothing but "failure" from unrealistic expectations, such as the one in the original article that a large software project should have ZERO bug reports among ALL testers and users before it works. Even with your superman PM- can you say that you have had ZERO bug reports? On ANY project? Not "bugs that have been addressed". Not "bugs deemed too small to deal with". ZERO bugs. Heck, any significantly complex GUI is going to garner complaints from somebody who just wants to complain.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but of COURSE you're going to fail if you have unreasonable expectations. Duh! I've never even hinted otherwise. In fact, I don't accept those contracts that are unreasonable. It's not a "make money at all costs over the short term" proposition. In my opinion, the "CTO" (and I use that word loosely) of the project was a moron and it sounds like he was a political appointment with no clue rather than someone who actually has been there in the trenches.
I've also never said we've ever had (or expect) zero bugs. We FULLY expect to have them, (and yes, we get them plenty) but my "superman PM" knows enough to estimate for them going in, and deal with them when they arrive. Our experience has allowed us to limit the number of bugs we have, and our process allows us to mitigate the risks as best as we can, and our quality control ensures that they are handled internally as much as possible, so that the client never sees most of them.
I'm not sure what your beef is, but I was just addressing the original statement (yours, now that I look back) about how all project come in late, over budget, and don't work. Maybe the ones you've been involved in have been like that, but for ME, that's not the case. (Not saying it was your fault, etc., just your exposure)
I work in State Government- and we can't even fill the positions we have because the beancounters won't let us pay industry standard wages.
Then you're fucked right out of the gate. Sounds to me like it's pretty silly to stick around in that environment and constantly be involved with projects that do nothing but fail, unless you have no other options. In case you haven't noticed, you come off as being pretty bitter and negative. If it were me, I'd probably go find something else that more rewarding and enjoyable, as it'll drastically improve your outlook on life. Being hopeful and optimistic is SO much more fun.
But hey, best of luck with whatever you do.
Not sure what context you're talking about, but I'm talking about things from MY context, as the owner of software development and services companies. Sure, I won't be doing any $170 million dollar contracts any time soon, but I have been involved in many $100 million dollar ones.
Also, I'm not responding directly to the specific case of the story, just the parent's generalized statement regarding software projects.
When you get to be involved in a large Government project, there's not much you can do, as it takes on a life of it's own (usually, I imagine a giant ball of snakes in a very deep pit).
Wouldn't that automatically make him overbudget in any publicly traded company or government, where cost is a concern?
I think you're just taking a short/small/unrealistic view at what "cost" is. Sure, my PM might be out of the normal scale for PM's, but I can easily show business cases that justify his "extra" cost (usually less than 2% of the total project, on projects $.5 - $5 million) vs. being late, over budget, and not having something that works. And, I've never had to sell to the "bean counters". I've sold to the client's management, or champions of the project. Sure, bean counters will go over the estimates and projections and costs, and bitch about a whole bunch of stuff, but then we explain and justify those items, and it's all good. I have YET to deal with any client that didn't get it. Let's face it, if I can't sell a higher-than-normal PM to the project, then I'm not doing my job properly. I haven't had a problem doing so in the contracts we've done. And those contracts are with US/CDN Governments and banks. And we deal in very large, complex systems, predominately in globally distributed Oracle installations.
In government and publically traded companies, you don't get to pick your clients. You work with who they tell you to work with. So I guess you've found the way around it: Pick your consituents/customers carefully enough, and you won't have any significantly complex projects to worry about.
Once again, not sure what context you're talking in... I'll assume that it's the Government as client.
Don't kid yourself, governments and public companies FOR SURE have a say in who they work with. When you get right down to it, there is usually ONE GUY/GIRL that is responsible for the project, and has a huge amount to say in who gets the contract. And they generally have the skills (political) to get their way with any kind of oversight that may be in place. To think otherwise would be very naieve, IMO. I have seen sooo many examples of RFP's/contracts/requirements being worded in such a specific manner that only one particular supplier would meet the requirements, just so that the customer could be guaranteed that that supplier would be picked. (I've been on the receiving end of a few of them). I've also seen a large project broken down into many, many smaller ones so that each piece is within the "arbitrary assignment" limit, allowing the manager to authorize the contract himself, without having to go to tender or oversight.
As to the case where I'm the supplier to the client, I guess I'm just used to being at the top of the org chart of a smaller company, because I do exactly that... I pick my clients very, very carefully. As it is, I've declined probably 40% of our potential contracts over the past 2 years because of the potential risk to my company. Unless you're a monster company, like Anderson or IBM, you have to take a serious look at any project you're going to be involved in and evaluate the risk and return on investment. Even then, pick wrong, and it can kill you off. (Enron/Anderson?) And not just the financial ROI... your reputation can make or break you. Go see how well Pangaea is doing around the BC Government these days... their reputation is killing them, slowly but surely.
And it's not about picking the "easy" contracts... we enjoy pushing ourselves as much as anyone who is good at their job. I just wan
I tend to agree that any project can get two of the following: "done better, done faster, done cheaper", but I've been involved in a lot of projects where all three of "under budget, works as designed, and on time" are satisfied.
That's because I've hired one of the best, most technical project managers I've ever worked with. I pay him more than double what he made in his last job, and easily a third more than what he could get elsewhere. He is a hard-core programmer who gets project management and interacts well with clients.
A lot of my devleopers hate him, because he doesn't let their shit slide. They HAVE to do things the way he says... proper requirement/design/implementation/test docs, code reviews, etc. If not, he is 100% empowered by me to kick some ass.
We also take a lot of time to educate the client. That, to me, is the biggest problem... "stupid" clients. They don't understand software development, and don't properly equip themselves to ensure that their project will be successful. We refuse to work with any clients that are not prepared, as I've seen the nightmarish outcomes that can occur.
Sure, it seems like common sense, but common sense just ain't so common any more.
I find it interesting that they would know what accounts have weak passwords... does that mean that they are storing them in clear-text somewhere? If not, then how do they know?
The sites we build and administer only store hashes of the password, or something similarly obsfucated.
But yeah, the public-key ssh2 access previously mentioned seems like the only "proper" method for their access.
Oh well... hindsight is 20/20.
Why not just copy the file? If they're saying that the DB wasn't accessed, that has nothing to do with the copying of the file to another machine, and running it there.
"in at least some cases"
Sure, I'm not saying that some of them aren't doing their own marketing... but how do you even BEGIN to think about policing that? Or determining when they are or aren't involved?
The ROI just isn't there... too much work, too many unknowns, and too little gain to be had to justify the effort, IMO.
Huh? It doesn't take much to be able to buy stock online... hell, my MOTHER can do it with her online banking.
And who the hell would buy ANYTHING from spam? Oh yeah... lots of idiots. Same goes for Nigerian scams, etc.
It's just a different product, with next to no money trail because you're only benefitting from the idiots pushing the price up.
And as to the stock scam, just what money do you follow? People are making legit purchases, of a legit stock. The only bitch is that someone OTHER than the company is marketing it to push the price up so that they can sell at a profit.
Well said... too many people lose sight of the goal, and think that all eficiency boils down to CPU cycles.
In reality, it is a compromise between many factors, including cost, flexibility, rate of change, manageability, and performance.
The only REAL requirement is that it does its job at a cost that is reasonable and sustainable to the company.
If you spend 10 times more on development and increase time to delivery in order to save a small fraction of that on hardware, you've lost.
For what it's worth, we do ALL of our development in interpreted languages, mostly Java, some PHP, Ruby on Rails, etc., and it all comes down to whatever is the best tool for the job. Very rarely do we ever come across a situation where 2 clients have needs that result in the exact same tools being used, unless it's just to use tools that we're more familiar with so that we can get the job done faster for them.
It's all about balancing compromise.
Is this before or after you try and get an audience with the French PM?
Except it's hardly ever the company itself that is doing the promotions... it's third-party people that target them and convince others, via spam, to invest in the company, which drives the prices up, which allows them to unload their own stock at a profit.
All while being 100% unrelated to the company.