Exactly. With the exception of the 27 (or so) stations actually owned by Fox, they have no ability to stop their affiliates from transmitting programs over the air.
If you was your time upfront and someone beats you to the market, who cares about the engineering!! If you capture the market for a new idea you can use a more formal process for v2 while your competitors missed out.
Just like MySpace beat FaceBook to market and Netscape beat IE to market. Getting that first mover advantage really fueled their meteoric rise and long stay at the top.
The major issue is handing over access keys to a corporate VPN to a random bloke in another country. Frankly, I'm quite impressed with the general concept, but introducing a huge security breach isn't going to make you popular, he should have just had the guy email him code and the ctrl-V it himself, cutting the security breach out, he'd probably never have been caught unless there was something unexpected in the code.
Exactly. Skip the VPN issue and he'd probably still be making a ton of money for sitting on his ass all day.
Except that is an article from 2010 about possible insider trading, not about the alleged market manipulation by driving down the stock price through rumors and FUD like seemed to start happening in 2012.
The article explicitly talks about insider trading by market manipulation of channel checks.
th), followed by project updates from other teams (where pertinent) and finally a free topic session to discuss any issue.
Okay, just to be clear.
In your meetings, everyone waits while one person tells his status, then everyone waits while a 2nd person tells his status, and so on.
How is this more efficient than everyone composing a 1-paragraph summary and sending it around in E-mail? How is this more efficient than the boss visiting everyone one-at-a-time, taking notes, and typing up a summary E-mail?
How is a "free topics" meeting with everyone better than "targetted topics" meetings with only the people involved? Aren't impropmtu get-togethers with a couple of people in the bosse's office more effective than big meetings in the conference room?
I'm confused. What about your meetings make them good meetings?
What I've found is that if you don't meet together as a team, then you can't make sure that everyone's on the same page. You'd be surprised how many times someone brings up a problem and it turns out that 2 other people knew about it and hadn't said anything yet or knew about it and figured out how to fix it (or work around it). Email isn't as good because you don't know if everyone read it or understood it. Impromptu get-togethers are encouraged, but aren't a substitute for a regularly scheduled team meeting. Things are often handled quicker and easier if everyone's in one place at the same time. In addition, as the leader, I had a busy schedule, so spending 30 minutes together with everyone was more efficient than spending 10 minutes with 5-10 different people. And I often had project updates from the management that I would pass along. I only had to talk about it once and answer questions once while knowing that everyone is aware of it.
Targetted topics meetings are scheduled for topics that aren't of interest to the general team. Free topics are usually for non project updates (going on vacation, doctor's appt,, etc) which the rest of the team should be aware of. And strict meeting rules were enforced. If a topic started going on too long (usually longer than a minute or two), then discussion was stopped and a separate meeting was scheduled to handle that particular issue with only the people needed.
Most of the meetings were done in 10-15 minutes and were scheduled no closer than once a week. But they are necessary to make sure the project runs smoothly and everyone is aware of what's going on with their teammates and the rest of the project team and don't get stuck in their own silo without knowing what else is going on.
Some meetings are necessary obviously... I'm in my first senior developer position now and I've instituted hard limits on meetings because it frustrates me to no end when idiots discuss minutiae for valuable hours of my team's time.
The issue isn't meetings, it's bad meetings. Each meeting should have a set agenda and a time limit for each topic. When I was a senior developer, I would have a weekly status meeting with my team. The meeting always started off with basic status reports (what did you do, what are you stuck on, what do you need help with), followed by project updates from other teams (where pertinent) and finally a free topic session to discuss any issue. If something took more than a couple minutes to discuss, we'd table it for a separate meeting with only the people that needed to be there.
Meetings should exist to make sure everyone's on the same page and so people who need something have a forum to ask for it. Without a firm agenda (which is aggressively held to) meetings lower productivity.
This is my suggestion as well. It's actually Delicious Library 2 by now. You can search by name, ISBN number, scanning the barcode, etc. You can also store books, CDs, DVDs, games, physical devices, etc.
Exactly. Streaming has lower pricing and higher costs for providers. Why would Apple be interested? I'm sure someone at Apple is looking at it to see if it makes sense, but that doesn't mean they are actually interested in doing it.
No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy
It's only taken the iPhone 2 years to catch up partially with the features which sold me on the far better Android platform (yes I'm am now an Android fanboy) with things like a useful notification bar, multitasking, or home screen widgets, and even now what I don't miss is paying 99c for every bloody app no matter how basic.
There's a difference between features and experiences. Users care more about the overall experience a lot more than a set of features. They are even willing to go without features if they like the experience.
Having implemented OAuth1.0 and 2.0 services for communicating with various platforms, I was amazed at the lack of any security in Oauth 2.0. As mentioned by others, it completely relies on SSL/TLS, which is itself somewhat broken. From what I have gathered, it's simpler. That's about it. Actually, I prefer OAuth 1.0 and have modeled many of my own APIs after it.
1.0 had some issues when you moved beyond web apps (JavaScript or mobile apps), but I am much more confident of its security.
were I rich, I would be all over autonomous vehicle for a few reasons:
1) you can probably drive it yourself if you want to speed
2) I could hit the pub and get wrecked and have the car drive me home without worrying about getting arrested for DUI
The way DUI laws are written currently, I wonder if you could get a DUI for being in an autonomous vehicle while intoxicated simply because you have the option of taking over control.
I don't care how technical you are if you can't explain what you are doing to others. You need to be able to explain what you are going to do during design phase, so that others can make sure it fits in with the pieces they are working on. You need to explain what you are doing to production support teams, so that they can understand the system well enough to support it. Also, depending on the type of project you are working on, you will probably need to explain some of it to people who do user manuals, phone support documents, training documents etc.
There are several different levels of explanation that need to be done and you better be able to explain your application to all of them.
That's a fairly broad statement, "GWT doesn't hold up well". I'm curious to see why you think this is the case - my (extensive) experience has been the opposite - GWT scales well and you can do stuff with it that is painful with other technologies (eg. works across just about every browser - even with braindead IE6's limitations; you can also development very modular and re-usable components with GWT). So yeah, I'm interested to hear what general-purpose solution you think is better than GWT and why.
Most of my experience with GWT was with pre-2.0. We had issues when trying to bring in stand-alone pages in addition to the web app we had. It was difficult to integrate existing non-GWT pages with GWT.
GWT is decent if you are building a web application that will be doing one thing. If you are looking for a more broadscale application, then GWT doesn't hold up well.
Only sales people that I've had trouble with past that generally are car salesmen, who've even tried the technique of blocking the exit driveway with staff so I couldn't drive off. I saw their block, and raised them a 4x4 through the hedge row. Shoulda seen the looks on their faces...
Car salesmen do tend to get upset when you drive their car off the lot without paying for it.
When Google took over search engines- there were other companies at play- but no-one had an emotional attachment to them.
Now Google wants to take over social media- but Facebook is entrenched. It's different than conquering the search world because Facebook has an emotional value for people- and the less technical people that anchor it are less likely to switch than the early adopters of the internet that switched to Google's search engine.
Facebook doesn't have an emotional value for people. Facebook has all the friends that people want to share things with while Google+ doesn't. People have no problem switching social networks, but they are not going to do so unless there is a reason to switch and people are there. Google hasn't filled either of those criteria.
After trying to use Google Maps and/or the Phoenix Metro time schedule when I took my son on the Phoenix Metro Light Rail (which he absolutely loves riding), I gave up and just scraped the data and wrote my own application (iOS app and Android app). The biggest issue I had was that the schedule data is badly done. They only have the times for half the stations (14 out of 28), so I had to interpolate for the remaining stations and call it good enough
For unknown reasons, my work computer (still on Windows XP but Win 2007 is coming any day now) won't let Firefox higher than 8.X run. 9.X or 10.X just freeze when starting up.
The house took only 6 weeks to build because someone paid for the land and hired architects to design the house before they even started. Then they organized 30 different people (including many specialists) to work on it while making sure they are getting all needed permits, following local building ordinances and safety laws. Feel free to replace all that work by doing it yourself and see how many years it will take to finish the house.
Outsourcing code development doesn't work unless you have some onshore owners of the code who are able to review for code quality and demand fixes when the quality suffers. I've been working with offshore developers for over a decade now. There are some that are really good and I felt confident giving their code just a quick once over review. There are others where I have to review the code thoroughly because they're not quite up to par (such as the time I had to write the Java time code interface for a coder after he failed three times to figure out how to do it). Without an employee owner for the code, then outsourcing is hit-and-miss for actually saving money.
So, the cable companies (which deliver content to customer's homes) wants to charge people extra because of the high number of Netflix (which delivers content to customer's home) streaming subscribers. I see this becoming a huge anti-trust lawsuit with Netflix suing the cable companies for trying to install barriers in their Internet service to protect their their TV service profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. With the exception of the 27 (or so) stations actually owned by Fox, they have no ability to stop their affiliates from transmitting programs over the air.
If you was your time upfront and someone beats you to the market, who cares about the engineering!! If you capture the market for a new idea you can use a more formal process for v2 while your competitors missed out.
Just like MySpace beat FaceBook to market and Netscape beat IE to market. Getting that first mover advantage really fueled their meteoric rise and long stay at the top.
The major issue is handing over access keys to a corporate VPN to a random bloke in another country. Frankly, I'm quite impressed with the general concept, but introducing a huge security breach isn't going to make you popular, he should have just had the guy email him code and the ctrl-V it himself, cutting the security breach out, he'd probably never have been caught unless there was something unexpected in the code.
Exactly. Skip the VPN issue and he'd probably still be making a ton of money for sitting on his ass all day.
Except that is an article from 2010 about possible insider trading, not about the alleged market manipulation by driving down the stock price through rumors and FUD like seemed to start happening in 2012.
The article explicitly talks about insider trading by market manipulation of channel checks.
Someone is getting rich out of this
And the SEC is starting to investigate
th), followed by project updates from other teams (where pertinent) and finally a free topic session to discuss any issue.
Okay, just to be clear.
In your meetings, everyone waits while one person tells his status, then everyone waits while a 2nd person tells his status, and so on.
How is this more efficient than everyone composing a 1-paragraph summary and sending it around in E-mail? How is this more efficient than the boss visiting everyone one-at-a-time, taking notes, and typing up a summary E-mail?
How is a "free topics" meeting with everyone better than "targetted topics" meetings with only the people involved? Aren't impropmtu get-togethers with a couple of people in the bosse's office more effective than big meetings in the conference room?
I'm confused. What about your meetings make them good meetings?
What I've found is that if you don't meet together as a team, then you can't make sure that everyone's on the same page. You'd be surprised how many times someone brings up a problem and it turns out that 2 other people knew about it and hadn't said anything yet or knew about it and figured out how to fix it (or work around it). Email isn't as good because you don't know if everyone read it or understood it. Impromptu get-togethers are encouraged, but aren't a substitute for a regularly scheduled team meeting. Things are often handled quicker and easier if everyone's in one place at the same time. In addition, as the leader, I had a busy schedule, so spending 30 minutes together with everyone was more efficient than spending 10 minutes with 5-10 different people. And I often had project updates from the management that I would pass along. I only had to talk about it once and answer questions once while knowing that everyone is aware of it. Targetted topics meetings are scheduled for topics that aren't of interest to the general team. Free topics are usually for non project updates (going on vacation, doctor's appt,, etc) which the rest of the team should be aware of. And strict meeting rules were enforced. If a topic started going on too long (usually longer than a minute or two), then discussion was stopped and a separate meeting was scheduled to handle that particular issue with only the people needed. Most of the meetings were done in 10-15 minutes and were scheduled no closer than once a week. But they are necessary to make sure the project runs smoothly and everyone is aware of what's going on with their teammates and the rest of the project team and don't get stuck in their own silo without knowing what else is going on.
Some meetings are necessary obviously... I'm in my first senior developer position now and I've instituted hard limits on meetings because it frustrates me to no end when idiots discuss minutiae for valuable hours of my team's time.
The issue isn't meetings, it's bad meetings. Each meeting should have a set agenda and a time limit for each topic. When I was a senior developer, I would have a weekly status meeting with my team. The meeting always started off with basic status reports (what did you do, what are you stuck on, what do you need help with), followed by project updates from other teams (where pertinent) and finally a free topic session to discuss any issue. If something took more than a couple minutes to discuss, we'd table it for a separate meeting with only the people that needed to be there. Meetings should exist to make sure everyone's on the same page and so people who need something have a forum to ask for it. Without a firm agenda (which is aggressively held to) meetings lower productivity.
This is my suggestion as well. It's actually Delicious Library 2 by now. You can search by name, ISBN number, scanning the barcode, etc. You can also store books, CDs, DVDs, games, physical devices, etc.
May I be the first to say...WTF???
Exactly. Streaming has lower pricing and higher costs for providers. Why would Apple be interested? I'm sure someone at Apple is looking at it to see if it makes sense, but that doesn't mean they are actually interested in doing it.
No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy
It's only taken the iPhone 2 years to catch up partially with the features which sold me on the far better Android platform (yes I'm am now an Android fanboy) with things like a useful notification bar, multitasking, or home screen widgets, and even now what I don't miss is paying 99c for every bloody app no matter how basic.
There's a difference between features and experiences. Users care more about the overall experience a lot more than a set of features. They are even willing to go without features if they like the experience.
Having implemented OAuth1.0 and 2.0 services for communicating with various platforms, I was amazed at the lack of any security in Oauth 2.0. As mentioned by others, it completely relies on SSL/TLS, which is itself somewhat broken. From what I have gathered, it's simpler. That's about it. Actually, I prefer OAuth 1.0 and have modeled many of my own APIs after it.
1.0 had some issues when you moved beyond web apps (JavaScript or mobile apps), but I am much more confident of its security.
were I rich, I would be all over autonomous vehicle for a few reasons: 1) you can probably drive it yourself if you want to speed 2) I could hit the pub and get wrecked and have the car drive me home without worrying about getting arrested for DUI
The way DUI laws are written currently, I wonder if you could get a DUI for being in an autonomous vehicle while intoxicated simply because you have the option of taking over control.
I don't care how technical you are if you can't explain what you are doing to others. You need to be able to explain what you are going to do during design phase, so that others can make sure it fits in with the pieces they are working on. You need to explain what you are doing to production support teams, so that they can understand the system well enough to support it. Also, depending on the type of project you are working on, you will probably need to explain some of it to people who do user manuals, phone support documents, training documents etc. There are several different levels of explanation that need to be done and you better be able to explain your application to all of them.
That's a fairly broad statement, "GWT doesn't hold up well". I'm curious to see why you think this is the case - my (extensive) experience has been the opposite - GWT scales well and you can do stuff with it that is painful with other technologies (eg. works across just about every browser - even with braindead IE6's limitations; you can also development very modular and re-usable components with GWT). So yeah, I'm interested to hear what general-purpose solution you think is better than GWT and why.
Most of my experience with GWT was with pre-2.0. We had issues when trying to bring in stand-alone pages in addition to the web app we had. It was difficult to integrate existing non-GWT pages with GWT.
GWT is decent if you are building a web application that will be doing one thing. If you are looking for a more broadscale application, then GWT doesn't hold up well.
Only sales people that I've had trouble with past that generally are car salesmen, who've even tried the technique of blocking the exit driveway with staff so I couldn't drive off. I saw their block, and raised them a 4x4 through the hedge row. Shoulda seen the looks on their faces...
Car salesmen do tend to get upset when you drive their car off the lot without paying for it.
If Facebook feels that threatened, it can just buy Yahoo. What's the value now, $1.25, or is that including a cheeseburger?
I'm sure Google would just sit by and let Facebook buy Yahoo.
When Google took over search engines- there were other companies at play- but no-one had an emotional attachment to them.
Now Google wants to take over social media- but Facebook is entrenched. It's different than conquering the search world because Facebook has an emotional value for people- and the less technical people that anchor it are less likely to switch than the early adopters of the internet that switched to Google's search engine.
Facebook doesn't have an emotional value for people. Facebook has all the friends that people want to share things with while Google+ doesn't. People have no problem switching social networks, but they are not going to do so unless there is a reason to switch and people are there. Google hasn't filled either of those criteria.
After trying to use Google Maps and/or the Phoenix Metro time schedule when I took my son on the Phoenix Metro Light Rail (which he absolutely loves riding), I gave up and just scraped the data and wrote my own application (iOS app and Android app). The biggest issue I had was that the schedule data is badly done. They only have the times for half the stations (14 out of 28), so I had to interpolate for the remaining stations and call it good enough
Damn it. I forgot to log in before replying.
Yes there were some minor plot holes, but overall it was a wonderful book(my review). Bacigalupi is one of my new favorite writers.
For unknown reasons, my work computer (still on Windows XP but Win 2007 is coming any day now) won't let Firefox higher than 8.X run. 9.X or 10.X just freeze when starting up.
The house took only 6 weeks to build because someone paid for the land and hired architects to design the house before they even started. Then they organized 30 different people (including many specialists) to work on it while making sure they are getting all needed permits, following local building ordinances and safety laws. Feel free to replace all that work by doing it yourself and see how many years it will take to finish the house.
Outsourcing code development doesn't work unless you have some onshore owners of the code who are able to review for code quality and demand fixes when the quality suffers. I've been working with offshore developers for over a decade now. There are some that are really good and I felt confident giving their code just a quick once over review. There are others where I have to review the code thoroughly because they're not quite up to par (such as the time I had to write the Java time code interface for a coder after he failed three times to figure out how to do it). Without an employee owner for the code, then outsourcing is hit-and-miss for actually saving money.
So, the cable companies (which deliver content to customer's homes) wants to charge people extra because of the high number of Netflix (which delivers content to customer's home) streaming subscribers. I see this becoming a huge anti-trust lawsuit with Netflix suing the cable companies for trying to install barriers in their Internet service to protect their their TV service profits.