Mmm. Sim Architect. Throw in some complex material choices, start with a garden hut and work the player up to a skyscraper or a sports stadium.
It's all easy until you're trying to factor in water pressure at half-time and every toilet in the stadium just flushed, or a goal is scored and 40,000 people just jumped in the air and landed at the same time - assuming you didn't create a Hillsborough style crush through poor entranceway design.
Devs should never, ever, ever get a requirement, even a simple task, from someone that is not a direct manager
That's incredibly wrong. A developer's manager should never be a bottleneck between them and the person that needs their skills. Why the fuck would I force someone whose role is management to handle all of the requirements gathering, analysis, interpretation?
How about the development manager focus on developing the development team's skills, assuring they're sufficiently resourced, managing the pipeline of work and helping their careers.
The project manager can deal with the project timescales, funding, coordination and all the boring shit that entails.
The developer can go and talk to the people with actual requirements, implement them and make sure the code actually meets the needs of the people that will be using it.
What, you're scared of talking to people? Go work for yourself.
. If your a professional with more than 2 years of experience and can't figure out what work conditions help you focus and what work conditions don't, you should probably just go work at McDonalds and save your boss the hassle of firing you eventually.
So after 2 years you had the self-awareness and experience to know whether you worked most effectively in open-plan or offices, the benefits and needs of teamworking, the balance between heads-down time and communication and collaboration, the motivation curve associated with increased pay, the multiple other ways that you could be motivated, the optimal work/life balance that you'll need over the next several years and how best to achieve it and the forty other things that vary across a team?
A third reason (and the reason I'm very productive when I work on a Sunday): After hours I'm eating into my own time; the sooner I'm done, the sooner I can get on with my life.
I use this constructively. If I have a "by end of week" deadline I might do a three hour lunch with friends on the Friday, quit early, have a great start to the weekend then easily make up that time early on Sunday.
My company expects successful delivery, not arbitrary time in the office.
My brain isn't always-on. Sometimes I stare at the screen and can't concentrate. At such times it's nice to be able to go and do something else.
Something like table football gives me a way to chat with colleagues, find out what they're doing, share the work I'm on, exchange ideas, solve problems, chat about non-work things, build relationships.
When I am heads-down working on stuff, letting my less focussed colleagues go elsewhere to chat, relax, refresh their brains means they aren't distracting me.
When everybody in the room is happier in the office, everybody and the company benefits.
Some people have the mentality that they get to work, they do four hours, stop for lunch, do another four hours and go home. I think they're fucking weird and I prefer not to employ them.
I'd rather have people that see work as part of their lives, that get to the office, engage with the people around them, get a few hours productive work done then go home happy and relaxed.
The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage.
Yep. I bought my last car, drove it for four years without it breaking down once, with service/repair costs other than brakes/tyres/oil totally under £1000 across the period and sold it to buy a newer vehicle.
Could I strip an engine and rebuild it? Yeah. Can I be arsed? No. Just give me a fucking car that works.
Or just play old games. There's an awful lot out there.
Shit, I do have a seriously above average gaming PC and I still tend to play games that are 2-5 years old. I have a large backlog, I wait for the prices to drop, the bugs all get fixed and even something slammed for performance issues like Rage is running at the top-end of its graphics settings smoothly and very prettily.
Sure, it's four years old. I've never played it before, it's as good as new to me.
So they intellectually disabled and you hate them for it?
Hmm, interesting question.
I don't necessarily hate the individuals, and I'm perfectly fine with them dressing up a bit and getting together every Sunday, having a bit of a sing, maybe share a pot of tea and reassure each other than they're all going to some mythical la la land when they die.
I hate them for trying to impose their beliefs on others. I hate them for abusing children. I hate them for trying to subvert the law towards their archaic superstitions.
This law allows discrimination against people based on their sexuality, not on whether they have sex.
Lesbians tend not to pick their dick anywhere. Many gay men don't want anal sex - either as giver or soft warm recipient.
They're just as discriminated against as the guy that's leaking into his knickers and yet the straight man that just fucked his wife in her rectum is just fine.
Would you sue the local tyre shop for refusing to sell you bacon? I mean, it's a retail establishment, by your logic they're clearly discriminating against you by refusing the stock the product you're after.
There's a big difference between "I don't stock that product" and "I have an irrational prejudice so I'm not going to serve you"
I'd say that it would be fine. After all, they have no experience of the porcine form on which to base their cake, they lack the skills in baking pigs to assure a quality product and they can choose not to carry specific products.
That's very different to refusing to sell a cake to someone purely because you know they had bacon for breakfast.
the opponents of the legislation state to the contrary that you should be required to sell pork products
Really? I haven't heard anybody state that. Your entire post is based on a flawed misunderstanding - much like your religious beliefs. You're an ignorant cunt on all fronts.
Doesn't seem to stop the religiously damaged from treating them as a homogenous group. So why not respond by treating anybody stupid enough to believe in magical sky fairies as a single homogenous group?
I came across the term 'financial abortion' last night - basically the concept that a man that doesn't want a child can legally remove his financial obligations for it if the mother chooses to carry to term.
Can't see it ever reaching the stage of legislation but it's an interesting concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily pair programming is about more than just productivity.
Did those productivity assessments include TCO, including rework due to bugs discovered eight months later?
So his inability to detonate the bomb he successfully smuggled onto the aircraft led the other passengers to twat him.
Not sure how that gives you warm fuzzy feelings, if he'd been successful there'd have been nothing to twat.
He was one of the co-authors of Peopleware.
Worth reading.
I'd rather have a good manager with poor technical skills than the inverse.
I don't need my manager to be able to do what I can do. I need them to trust me to do it, and to let me get on with it.
Mmm. Sim Architect. Throw in some complex material choices, start with a garden hut and work the player up to a skyscraper or a sports stadium.
It's all easy until you're trying to factor in water pressure at half-time and every toilet in the stadium just flushed, or a goal is scored and 40,000 people just jumped in the air and landed at the same time - assuming you didn't create a Hillsborough style crush through poor entranceway design.
Devs should never, ever, ever get a requirement, even a simple task, from someone that is not a direct manager
That's incredibly wrong. A developer's manager should never be a bottleneck between them and the person that needs their skills. Why the fuck would I force someone whose role is management to handle all of the requirements gathering, analysis, interpretation?
How about the development manager focus on developing the development team's skills, assuring they're sufficiently resourced, managing the pipeline of work and helping their careers.
The project manager can deal with the project timescales, funding, coordination and all the boring shit that entails.
The developer can go and talk to the people with actual requirements, implement them and make sure the code actually meets the needs of the people that will be using it.
What, you're scared of talking to people? Go work for yourself.
. If your a professional with more than 2 years of experience and can't figure out what work conditions help you focus and what work conditions don't, you should probably just go work at McDonalds and save your boss the hassle of firing you eventually.
So after 2 years you had the self-awareness and experience to know whether you worked most effectively in open-plan or offices, the benefits and needs of teamworking, the balance between heads-down time and communication and collaboration, the motivation curve associated with increased pay, the multiple other ways that you could be motivated, the optimal work/life balance that you'll need over the next several years and how best to achieve it and the forty other things that vary across a team?
I know that I didn't.
A third reason (and the reason I'm very productive when I work on a Sunday): After hours I'm eating into my own time; the sooner I'm done, the sooner I can get on with my life.
I use this constructively. If I have a "by end of week" deadline I might do a three hour lunch with friends on the Friday, quit early, have a great start to the weekend then easily make up that time early on Sunday.
My company expects successful delivery, not arbitrary time in the office.
Because of many reasons.
My brain isn't always-on. Sometimes I stare at the screen and can't concentrate. At such times it's nice to be able to go and do something else.
Something like table football gives me a way to chat with colleagues, find out what they're doing, share the work I'm on, exchange ideas, solve problems, chat about non-work things, build relationships.
When I am heads-down working on stuff, letting my less focussed colleagues go elsewhere to chat, relax, refresh their brains means they aren't distracting me.
When everybody in the room is happier in the office, everybody and the company benefits.
Some people have the mentality that they get to work, they do four hours, stop for lunch, do another four hours and go home. I think they're fucking weird and I prefer not to employ them.
I'd rather have people that see work as part of their lives, that get to the office, engage with the people around them, get a few hours productive work done then go home happy and relaxed.
Because maybe the cost of the lunch isn't its value. Maybe shared food is an important team building component and teams do more than individuals.
The problem is that people like you who want to work on their car are becoming more and more rare -- most people just want their car to be reliable and if it breaks, take it to the garage.
Yep. I bought my last car, drove it for four years without it breaking down once, with service/repair costs other than brakes/tyres/oil totally under £1000 across the period and sold it to buy a newer vehicle.
Could I strip an engine and rebuild it? Yeah. Can I be arsed? No. Just give me a fucking car that works.
Or just play old games. There's an awful lot out there.
Shit, I do have a seriously above average gaming PC and I still tend to play games that are 2-5 years old. I have a large backlog, I wait for the prices to drop, the bugs all get fixed and even something slammed for performance issues like Rage is running at the top-end of its graphics settings smoothly and very prettily.
Sure, it's four years old. I've never played it before, it's as good as new to me.
No, probably modded down for being a twat.
Someone isn't a schmuck for highlighting that 5% isn't terribly good, even if you have a better reference demonstrating why.
open fire if you fail to immediately comply with their orders
That sounds like murder to me.
Failing to comply with the orders of someone is not grounds for shooting them.
If Tim Cook is so bloody interested in equality, he can give to the poor everything he is paid.
Well, he _has_ said he'll give his fortune to charity. Does that count?
The US was founded on justice, equality before the law . All other forms of equality forced by law are a swindle; they are injustice.
I suspect you agree with Tim Cook on this. The issue is that the law is trying to supercede equality and prevent it.
So they intellectually disabled and you hate them for it?
Hmm, interesting question.
I don't necessarily hate the individuals, and I'm perfectly fine with them dressing up a bit and getting together every Sunday, having a bit of a sing, maybe share a pot of tea and reassure each other than they're all going to some mythical la la land when they die.
I hate them for trying to impose their beliefs on others. I hate them for abusing children. I hate them for trying to subvert the law towards their archaic superstitions.
This law allows discrimination against people based on their sexuality, not on whether they have sex.
Lesbians tend not to pick their dick anywhere. Many gay men don't want anal sex - either as giver or soft warm recipient.
They're just as discriminated against as the guy that's leaking into his knickers and yet the straight man that just fucked his wife in her rectum is just fine.
I disagree, it's not the same thing at all.
Would you sue the local tyre shop for refusing to sell you bacon? I mean, it's a retail establishment, by your logic they're clearly discriminating against you by refusing the stock the product you're after.
There's a big difference between "I don't stock that product" and "I have an irrational prejudice so I'm not going to serve you"
I'd say that it would be fine. After all, they have no experience of the porcine form on which to base their cake, they lack the skills in baking pigs to assure a quality product and they can choose not to carry specific products.
That's very different to refusing to sell a cake to someone purely because you know they had bacon for breakfast.
the opponents of the legislation state to the contrary that you should be required to sell pork products
Really? I haven't heard anybody state that. Your entire post is based on a flawed misunderstanding - much like your religious beliefs. You're an ignorant cunt on all fronts.
Heh. From the last time this discussion took place last week:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Erm. Isn't Cook speaking out against laws that would explicitly legalise those actions by medievally ignorant cabbies?
How is that persecuting perpetuators of Roman era ignorance?
I believe any person should have the legal ability to refuse to marry. What the fuck does colour have to do with it?
Not all Christians are assholes.
Not all gays are arseholes. Or even arsebandits.
Doesn't seem to stop the religiously damaged from treating them as a homogenous group. So why not respond by treating anybody stupid enough to believe in magical sky fairies as a single homogenous group?
I came across the term 'financial abortion' last night - basically the concept that a man that doesn't want a child can legally remove his financial obligations for it if the mother chooses to carry to term.
Can't see it ever reaching the stage of legislation but it's an interesting concept.