I am indeed not doing XP. I am regretably not even programming commercially any longer. Hence spending far too much of my life using Visio, Word and Powerpoint.
Nonetheless, your assertion that anybody doing design is not doing XP is flawed. All software engineers do design, even those religiously following XP.
I am not the person to whom you directed your initial accusation of idiocy. I can thus not be STILL an idiot, and you were not refuting any assertion of mine.
In international waters a US vessel is protected by international law. Please cease to call other people idiots (two now, and counting) and instead repeat a simple mantra: US law applies to the US.
>> while pairing programmers and thus forcing everyone who is coding to kill their wrists (does that really leave that much room for thought?)
I fail to see how programming kills wrists. Especially since in pair programming people typically only control the keyboard for approximately half as much time.
And spending half your time thinking about the design, the code, the requirements, etc, means you have much more room for thought.
>> The story cards are a ridiculous substitute for a proper design
That's because they're requirements and not design.
Israel blithely ignores international law constantly. They get away with it only because of US backing.
Meanwhile, the Balkan states tried to ignore international law. They had UN troops go in, and now some leaders are facing war crimes trials.
Iraq complied with international law, but got invaded anyway. By the US.
Other countries are expected to obey international law. What I'm really confused by is how shining a light on an object overhead without damaging it can be a breach of international law.
Until you hand Bush in to The Hague to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, nobody in the US has a leg to stand on, complaining about international law.
At the same time, most muslims are not terrorists. Many muslims explicitly disown the terrorism, and state that it goes against the tenets of islam.
By demonising islam you engender hostility from otherwise neutral muslims, some of whom will become terrorists. The July 2006 bombing of London is an example of this in action.
I have many issues with islam. I have many issues with most organised religions. I'd prefer to address those issues through mature and reasoned debate (difficult though that can be with religions) and not through perceived prejudice.
I found his contribution effective in highlighting an apparent prejudice in your own post.
Just why are you singling out muslims in your post. Not all terrorists are islamic.
I appreciate that this wasn't the primary thrust of your argument, but it was something he felt worth highlighting, and I agree. Maybe you should stop criticising until you can appreciate the contribution he has made.
Or they could be so devastated at the loss of millions that they'd sue for peace immediately, before millions more went. And understand that if they do nuke back in an overreaction, they face the destruction of their entire nation (or, in America's case, their entire economy). The rest of the world will not sit back and watch a hot nuclear war.
However, if you have nukes, and get nuked, and don't nuke back, you really have the moral high ground. Pretty much every other country out there will offer to go and spank someone on your behalf. They'll give you half their GDP to sit back and not respond.
(of course, others would mock your weakness and suggest you could be attacked with impunity - can't win them all..)
>> NO offense to anyone but you can't even begin to imagine. Try being disabled for a while then get back with me.
Pick whatever transportation mechanism you like. Just don't fucking hide behind disabilities.
I have partial hearing, partial blindness and I need new kneecaps. I'm also far wealthier than my parents were at my age, and far less wealthy than the guy I work for. These facts are not linked.
Incidentally, fit a catalytic converter onto your muffled exhaust and you'll hush up all the people noting the pollution generation of your little two-stroke.
For a long time it just didn't make sense to run multiple apps in Windows. Win95 was the first with proper multitasking, and the first time PCs were powerful enough. If the windows user is from a DOS background (and many are) then that effect is amplified
Historically most people have run at very poor screen resolutions - 640x480 was commonplace in the office in the mid 90s, 800x600 until the turn of the century. That's a mix of hardware capability, software capability and monitor expense. At those resolutions there just isn't sufficient screen real-estate to run at anything less than fullscreen. Heck, I have 8 windows open at the moment and they're all over 800x600 (and all overlapping to one degree or another).
When people are working on a task (work/play/etc) they prefer to focus on that task. They do one thing. So they want that one task in the foreground, nothing else in the way. If they're working on a computer, it makes sense for them to give as much computer space as possible to that one task, so that they can focus better on it. Although they may have a lot of other applications also running, they don't typically need to interact with those apps - at most they need information from them, which is why you get things like IM popups and WinAmp fitting into a titlebar.
A legacy of the Windows design approach is the MDI window system. Even today office applications are MDI based. The application you run becomes the desktop within which you open multiple windows. There just isn't room for a multi-window MDI app in a small window on your desktop. People got used to running things small screen.
People waste screen space. I work with people that have a laptop. It's capable of 1280x1024, but they run at 1024x768. They then keep the Windows XP default theme, which takes up a lot of space on the edges of their windows. They have a 2-3 run task bar which sucks up around 1/6 of the bottom of their screen. They have a menu bar, two toolbutton bars, a status bar and other UI cruft on something like Outlook which take up literally half the remaining screen height. Running at anything less than fullscreen restricts their viewable text to just 2-3 lines.
Lots of reasons, I'm sure I've missed a few, and I'm not entirely sure I'd split the full-screen user population from the mixed-windows user population on purely OS grounds. But my first sensible windowed OS was X on a Sun, so I guess I just learned bad habits as a kid..
My laptop has been plugged in (with battery attached) for approximately two years now. In that time it's spent 0-4 hours unplugged on maybe a couple of dozen occasions, and once left the house for a week.
Earlier this year it was plugged in and running Windows for four months without a reboot.
Seems to me that this doesn't hurt it at all. Sorry.
I've only seen those two do that on TV. Although I have seen a Flanker in flight, they weren't doing the low-level stuff that day:(
Both very pretty aeroplanes though, yeah - made a change from all the cold war Soviet aircraft, they tended to prefer to build something that just wouldn't fall out of the air, and then add as many weapon delivery systems as possible. Made their helicopters look really nasty.
I've lived on military airfields, I've done engine testing, I've seen most military aircraft flying at airshows, and nothing sounds quite like Concorde.
Slashdot Mirror
>> most Slashdotters hate Bush more than they hate BinLaden
Ironically I probably count. Bush has had a far more negative impact on my life than Bin Laden.
Further, they both rely on archaic superstitions and irrational beliefs and attack people that disagree with them. I see little real difference.
I am indeed not doing XP. I am regretably not even programming commercially any longer. Hence spending far too much of my life using Visio, Word and Powerpoint.
Nonetheless, your assertion that anybody doing design is not doing XP is flawed. All software engineers do design, even those religiously following XP.
I am not the person to whom you directed your initial accusation of idiocy. I can thus not be STILL an idiot, and you were not refuting any assertion of mine.
In international waters a US vessel is protected by international law. Please cease to call other people idiots (two now, and counting) and instead repeat a simple mantra:
US law applies to the US.
My experience disagrees with you. But then, I don't get sore wrists when I'm writing 25000 word strategy docs..
Incidentally, design is always present. Good software engineers create good designs, whatever methodology they're following.
>> Most software projects fail due to poor management, then managers don't understand it is not an industrial activity.
Most software developers are at least as incompetent as their managers. Most software development methodologies are designed to cater for this.
Google had the foresight and benefit from hiring only top-end developers. What works at Google is doomed to failure in most companies.
>> while pairing programmers and thus forcing everyone who is coding to kill their wrists (does that really leave that much room for thought?)
I fail to see how programming kills wrists. Especially since in pair programming people typically only control the keyboard for approximately half as much time.
And spending half your time thinking about the design, the code, the requirements, etc, means you have much more room for thought.
>> The story cards are a ridiculous substitute for a proper design
That's because they're requirements and not design.
You sir, appear to be quoting US law in relation to an activity occurring in mainland China and/or orbital space.
Perhaps you would care to withdraw the remark concerning idiocy.
What utter tosh.
Israel blithely ignores international law constantly. They get away with it only because of US backing.
Meanwhile, the Balkan states tried to ignore international law. They had UN troops go in, and now some leaders are facing war crimes trials.
Iraq complied with international law, but got invaded anyway. By the US.
Other countries are expected to obey international law. What I'm really confused by is how shining a light on an object overhead without damaging it can be a breach of international law.
Until you hand Bush in to The Hague to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, nobody in the US has a leg to stand on, complaining about international law.
technically it is off topic - I was merely correcting the spelling of the parent poster.
i guess this would be a bad time to describe my actions as those of a grammar nazi..
At the same time, most muslims are not terrorists. Many muslims explicitly disown the terrorism, and state that it goes against the tenets of islam.
By demonising islam you engender hostility from otherwise neutral muslims, some of whom will become terrorists. The July 2006 bombing of London is an example of this in action.
I have many issues with islam. I have many issues with most organised religions. I'd prefer to address those issues through mature and reasoned debate (difficult though that can be with religions) and not through perceived prejudice.
I found his contribution effective in highlighting an apparent prejudice in your own post.
Just why are you singling out muslims in your post. Not all terrorists are islamic.
I appreciate that this wasn't the primary thrust of your argument, but it was something he felt worth highlighting, and I agree. Maybe you should stop criticising until you can appreciate the contribution he has made.
arbeit macht frei
Can in the UK. Where's this chap from?
Or they could be so devastated at the loss of millions that they'd sue for peace immediately, before millions more went. And understand that if they do nuke back in an overreaction, they face the destruction of their entire nation (or, in America's case, their entire economy). The rest of the world will not sit back and watch a hot nuclear war.
However, if you have nukes, and get nuked, and don't nuke back, you really have the moral high ground. Pretty much every other country out there will offer to go and spank someone on your behalf. They'll give you half their GDP to sit back and not respond.
(of course, others would mock your weakness and suggest you could be attacked with impunity - can't win them all..)
>> they couldn't deliver a nuclear weapon to the shores of the US even if they wanted to
How do I get to your little world? It seems safe and cuddly in there.
Already there
Luckily per-core prices are less than per-CPU, but deploy on an 8-core Sparc chip and it soon adds up.
>> NO offense to anyone but you can't even begin to imagine. Try being disabled for a while then get back with me.
Pick whatever transportation mechanism you like. Just don't fucking hide behind disabilities.
I have partial hearing, partial blindness and I need new kneecaps. I'm also far wealthier than my parents were at my age, and far less wealthy than the guy I work for. These facts are not linked.
Incidentally, fit a catalytic converter onto your muffled exhaust and you'll hush up all the people noting the pollution generation of your little two-stroke.
Hmm. Many answers:
For a long time it just didn't make sense to run multiple apps in Windows. Win95 was the first with proper multitasking, and the first time PCs were powerful enough. If the windows user is from a DOS background (and many are) then that effect is amplified
Historically most people have run at very poor screen resolutions - 640x480 was commonplace in the office in the mid 90s, 800x600 until the turn of the century. That's a mix of hardware capability, software capability and monitor expense. At those resolutions there just isn't sufficient screen real-estate to run at anything less than fullscreen. Heck, I have 8 windows open at the moment and they're all over 800x600 (and all overlapping to one degree or another).
When people are working on a task (work/play/etc) they prefer to focus on that task. They do one thing. So they want that one task in the foreground, nothing else in the way. If they're working on a computer, it makes sense for them to give as much computer space as possible to that one task, so that they can focus better on it. Although they may have a lot of other applications also running, they don't typically need to interact with those apps - at most they need information from them, which is why you get things like IM popups and WinAmp fitting into a titlebar.
A legacy of the Windows design approach is the MDI window system. Even today office applications are MDI based. The application you run becomes the desktop within which you open multiple windows. There just isn't room for a multi-window MDI app in a small window on your desktop. People got used to running things small screen.
People waste screen space. I work with people that have a laptop. It's capable of 1280x1024, but they run at 1024x768. They then keep the Windows XP default theme, which takes up a lot of space on the edges of their windows. They have a 2-3 run task bar which sucks up around 1/6 of the bottom of their screen. They have a menu bar, two toolbutton bars, a status bar and other UI cruft on something like Outlook which take up literally half the remaining screen height. Running at anything less than fullscreen restricts their viewable text to just 2-3 lines.
Lots of reasons, I'm sure I've missed a few, and I'm not entirely sure I'd split the full-screen user population from the mixed-windows user population on purely OS grounds. But my first sensible windowed OS was X on a Sun, so I guess I just learned bad habits as a kid..
The irony being, some students may update Wikipedia to include the information they researched and wrote up as part of their essay.
Thus Wikipedia and their essay would match, yet no plagiarism would have taken place.
I think if I were still at school I'd very intentionally engineer this situation just to piss off the school authorities.
Balance of probabilities? Looking bad..
My laptop has been plugged in (with battery attached) for approximately two years now. In that time it's spent 0-4 hours unplugged on maybe a couple of dozen occasions, and once left the house for a week.
Earlier this year it was plugged in and running Windows for four months without a reboot.
Seems to me that this doesn't hurt it at all. Sorry.
Socialists think so. Tax the rich, redistribute the wealth, all that.
I've only seen those two do that on TV. Although I have seen a Flanker in flight, they weren't doing the low-level stuff that day
Both very pretty aeroplanes though, yeah - made a change from all the cold war Soviet aircraft, they tended to prefer to build something that just wouldn't fall out of the air, and then add as many weapon delivery systems as possible. Made their helicopters look really nasty.
Nope. That'd be Concorde.
I've lived on military airfields, I've done engine testing, I've seen most military aircraft flying at airshows, and nothing sounds quite like Concorde.
I don't use a joystick when I fly in the BF games.
(I just crash a lot