EXCELLENT comparison to the waterfall model. Its my experience (ymmv) that almost no one does waterfall in practice, and, equally, almost no one does _insert favorite agile methodology here_ in practice. I tend to think of myself as 'agile' (as opposed to...what, I wonder?), but that's because I tend to define it in terms of the Agile Manifesto (http://agilemanifesto.org) rather than conformance to any specific methodology.
In my opinion, if you read the first page of the manifesto and you find that you agree with their four main points, then chances are you will be more comfortable in an agile environment than a non-agile one. If you're not in one (you'll know) and you'd like to be, pick up a book or two and see if there are ideas in there that you could use. As an example, parts of XP are really good and easy to implement, and other parts (pair programming comes to mind) tend to be less applicable to most teams. Or another example, you can adopt automated testing without necessarily doing full-blown TDD ( aka "only write code when there's a test case that fails" ).
As far as the specific, 'formal' agile methodologies go... leave those to the consultants. zealots, PHB's and other buzzword-compliant types.
I'm surprised you missed the biggest change of all: Liv Tyler's character (mental block: can't recall the name atm). Hey, I liked watching her on the screen as much as the next guy, but in the books, that character was barely a footnote. Anyone seen Glorfindel lately?
Don't assume that the folks in the call center are IT ! They usually aren't, just as the folks in your local tech retail store (Best Buy, Comp USA, etc. here in the States) usually aren't. The script is like a FAQ. They are taking you through the same troubleshooting steps a trained engineer would go through to diagnose the problem. If its a simple remedy, then it is more cost effective to let a non-engineer resolve the issue. You don't want your engineers spending a large part of their day on routine problems. Once the determination is made that it is not a typical problem and requires real thought to resolve (an "interesting" or "new" problem), that is when it is worth assigning the case to an engineer.
It helps to know how to get past the level 1 support quickly. I usually take note of some/all of the steps they have me go through (the usual checklist includes: power cycle the modem, connect the computer directly to the modem, ping tests, check the sync indicator, etc) so that when I do call in, I can be short with the level 1's and tell them "Yes, I checked all that already, its still not working. Here's what it's diong...". Be able to include enough technical details so the support rep knows you know what you're talking about. That usually works, and it makes the best use of everyone's time.
Then again, I'm an engineer myself, so by the time I call in, I'm 90% sure its a problem in the telcom's equipment.
One of the points of this article, is that because of the OLPC project we have "lost mind share" by "wasting" our time on "naive feel-good showboating".
What about the "lost mindshare" I now have as a result of "wasting" my time reading this FUD ??!!
Besides, did you seriously expect a Stanford professor to say that a project led by a former MIT person is a good idea?
Well said. There are a lot of sh** CS jobs out there. The good ones are hard to find. And the money is around half what it used to be.
I'd definitely recommend a dual major, or at least a useful minor. I had a second major in Business Administration, and it helps immensely out here in the real world. My CS coursework had almost nothing that required you to work as part of a team, vs. the management courses where you get it practically from day one. Technical ability is essentially viewed as a commodity... most resumes I look at, when I see a CS degree it just means you are "trainable". What will differentiate you is your ability to work well with the non-technical members of the team. I'm always looking at what activities you did besides just the geek coursework.
Of course ADA infringes on your freedom. It does so inorder to "promote the general welfare". There are plenty of laws on the books that infringe on your freedom. Obviously you don't own a business, in the U.S. or anywhere else, or you'd realize this. A few examples:
illegal to sell alcohol to persons under 21
illegal to sell tobacco to persons under 18
illegal to sell firearms to persons convicted of a felony
illegal to practice (medicine, law, accountancy, construction...) without a license.
illegal to refuse service based on ability to pay (to use your example). This one applies to hospitals, btw - they cannot refuse service just because they won't get paid, and do, in fact, have to treat people even though they know it is unprofitable to do so.
Yep. Someone from Sun marketing must have gone over to Apple. Each "minor" rev of 10.x has been a major rev. And each one has been different cat (Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard).
I think maybe their marketing guys are afraid to go to 11 because then they'd have to call it OS XI or something (keep in mind many consumers, myself included, call it "oh ess exx" not "oh ess ten"). We should see something different after 10.9, sooner if they run out of cat names.
This is admittedly off-topic, but...the fix for the "error dialog about not having a manifest file to load" is to generate a manifest (linker setting and also the new "manifest tool") and use the new "assembly" based deployment model. The release builds of CRT in VS 2005 have a runtime check which throws an exception if you don't have either a manifest resource (embedded) or.manifest file (detached) for your application. In other words, M$ is FORCING you to use their new deployment model now, whether you want to or not. And just for the sake of doing it - the.DLL's themselves don't care how they are deployed as they still run on pre-manifest systems.
Yay assemblies! They're like frameworks, except without versioning and without the development time support! More effort to build and you get nothing out of it.
(actually, there is probably some bit somewhere along the way about making backups, honestly, I don't know it to the letter, but I have the general gist)
Yeah there is. As other posters have mentioned, its called "fair use". DRM preventing you from burning your MP3 to CD so that you can play it on your CD player, is one example of fair use being violated. It is a legitimate complaint. Copyright is a tricky beast. You owe it to yourself to learn more about it, its clear that you don't understand the issues. Ultimately, DRM is incompatible with fair use.
Related, I should also point out that copyrights are supposed to expire, eventually. I have no idea whether DRM schemes account for that, but I doubt it. With DRM, you can (theoretically anyway) use technology hold your copyright forever.
Oh, and think about DRM the next time you visit a library. What would be on the shelves if books had DRM?
Kept the Marriage, Lost the Job
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
I hear where you're coming from. In my case, it turned out differently. I saved the marriage and lost the job. It wasn't easy - I basically had to walk out of the job, with nothing lined up, and we lived off savings and odd jobs for a few months. But I did eventually find an family-friendly employer.
I say we let the young, single people work the 80+ hour weeks, and wonder why the old timers don't. Call us lazy if you want, then you'll hit burnout and realize what we've been on about the whole time. Your lack of planning is not my crisis!
Uh, if you say so. IANAL, but I know of a case where a wrongful death judgment was discharged through bankruptcy. If you can get rid of that, defamation shouldn't be a problem.
... you can use lawyers. From the linked story (emphasis added):
"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?" ... Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
That's the part I find appalling. Given that the defendant did not appear in court (either because the summons was not delivered, or she couldn't afford it after having house destroyed by flood, or whatever), I find it pretty unlikely "fairness" (or lack thereof) of the comments could have been established. Even if she used the words "fraud" and "con artist", doesn't necessarily mean its libel. You can say that about someone if its true, but you have to be able to back it up. And we have know way of knowing, since defendant was unable to tell her side in court, and is unlikely to do so in the future
Whether or not the original accusations were true, IMO instead of salvaging her reputation by seeking this judgment, she has destroyed it. I personally would not want to seek help from someone who has been known to sue her dissatisfied customers into oblivion. I hope it was worth it.
I agree. Since you are teaching an intro class, I think the fewer obstacles you put between the student and the language concepts, the better.
Sure at some point in a professional CS career it is important to learn about the build pipeline, but unless you are a compiler designer, that knowledge is only important when you need to diagnose a broken pipeline. Seriously - if the pipeline always worked, there is no reason to know it, other than historical trivia. But it doesn't, so you need to, at some level. I guess for me the analogy is the C++ programmer needing to know assembler, so that they can diagnose code-generation bugs. Useful knowledge to have, but not something I'd inflict on a newcomer. Ditto for sort algorithms/implementations: its more important to me to know when to use a given algorithm, than knowing how to implement one. I would hope that you rarely implement common algorithms from scratch, and instead, that you use a well-tested reliable library. Same argument for containers (STL, java.util vs. hand-coding a container).
How did this get rated "insightful"? It is the most obvious counter-argument to make, a trained monkey could do it. And its a Red Herring.
Its easy to blame the people blaming MySpace, because its hard to think about a real solution to the problem. Hint: like most things in life, its somewhere in the middle.
You could use this same silly counter-argument to get bar owners to stop checking ID. After all, any "responsible" parent would "always" know what their children are up to, wouldn't they? This isn't about putting the blame on the drug (alcohol, myspace) instead of the user. Some parents, including myself, feel that it is important to give children an opportunity to grow up and make their own decisions, rather than controlling every single aspect of their lives. Guess what? This means that at some point I won't know everything they are doing, I will just have to hope that I taught them well and trust them to make good decisions on their own. Sure they'll make mistakes. This isn't about asking society to raise my kids, its about asking for reasonable precautions to help protect children against criminals.
You'd think MySpace would have learned something from the problems AOL faced a few years back. Or maybe find a lawyer that could spell COPPA.
The Article is Troll Bait, Don't Waste Your Time
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Subject says it all. I went over to read the linked article and I regretted it. The guy is so painfully clueless on this topic, its hard to know where to begin. His most blatant mis-statement:
"Apple's not interested in a DIY Mac, nor is it concerned with the case-mod culture of the PC."
True Apple isn't big on a DIY system. Neither are most Mac users. But saying that there isn't a case-mod culture among Mac users is completely asinine. MacAddict runs case mod articles - with photos - on a semi-regular basis, all you'd have to do is pick up a back issue or two to see how wrong this statement is. And if you don't know about MacAddict (as I suspect the author doesn't) you really have no business making commentary about Mac users or case-mod culture.
"I don't know about you, but when I buy a computer I want everything to work right."
This of course is one of the top reasons that people buy Macs. The tight integration between the OS and the hardware still beats Windows Plug-and-Pray 9 times out of 10. "Plug it in, and it just works" has been the Apple mantra for *years*. Its what the users expect. Compare to Windows XP, where plugging in a new monitor meant I had to re-install my wireless network driver, or adding memory forces me to register with Microsoft on my next reboot? I'm not sure what's worse, that these things happen or that it doesn't bother me anymore.
There are other serious flaws with the article. It really has no redeeming value, and its just so loaded with flamebait it reflects poorly on the authors of PC Magazine that they even published it.
"Are there any laws on the books that give me the opportunity to fill out the application on paper as opposed to digitally?"
I don't think EOE helps you, but BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) is definitely applicable here. You are absolutely right that being able to work a computer is irrelevant to a job stocking shelves.
If the machine was actually *broken*, the most you can do really is get in touch with Kroeger Mgmt. (the district manager, or whatever), and let them know what an idiot manager they have working at that particular store. I don't think you'll be telling them anything they don't already know, however.
If the machine wasn't broken - a good test for this, incidentally, is have a friend fill out an app on the machine - then you have a good case. Because being able to successfully navigate their piece-of-sh** software is not a BFOQ, it is reasonable to ask to be accommodated. That doesn't mean they have to give you a paper app. It does mean they should assist you with completing the application process. Whether privacy policy will win out vs BFOQ is one for the courts. But you do have something, there.
If you are a member of a protected class, and think you are being discriminated against because of that (see the other post about that tactic), then again, a good test is to have a friend who isn't in your class fill out an app, and see how they are treated. Be sure to have the friend pretend (if needed) to have trouble with the software. If they are helped and you are not, you've got something. The ACLU will be interested, even if no one else is.
Incidentally, on the subject of EOE and BFOQ... it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on, for example, gender, provided you can show that it is a BFOQ. An exotic dancer, for instance.
This is all based on HR 101 and some electives I took as part of my BA. I'm not actually working in HR these days, but I have a little insight into some of the issues because of Management school.
Slashdot Mirror
EXCELLENT comparison to the waterfall model. Its my experience (ymmv) that almost no one does waterfall in practice, and, equally, almost no one does _insert favorite agile methodology here_ in practice. I tend to think of myself as 'agile' (as opposed to...what, I wonder?), but that's because I tend to define it in terms of the Agile Manifesto (http://agilemanifesto.org) rather than conformance to any specific methodology.
In my opinion, if you read the first page of the manifesto and you find that you agree with their four main points, then chances are you will be more comfortable in an agile environment than a non-agile one. If you're not in one (you'll know) and you'd like to be, pick up a book or two and see if there are ideas in there that you could use. As an example, parts of XP are really good and easy to implement, and other parts (pair programming comes to mind) tend to be less applicable to most teams. Or another example, you can adopt automated testing without necessarily doing full-blown TDD ( aka "only write code when there's a test case that fails" ).
As far as the specific, 'formal' agile methodologies go... leave those to the consultants. zealots, PHB's and other buzzword-compliant types.
I'm surprised you missed the biggest change of all: Liv Tyler's character (mental block: can't recall the name atm). Hey, I liked watching her on the screen as much as the next guy, but in the books, that character was barely a footnote. Anyone seen Glorfindel lately?
From the article, for those who obviously didn't read it (emphasis added):
Don't assume that the folks in the call center are IT ! They usually aren't, just as the folks in your local tech retail store (Best Buy, Comp USA, etc. here in the States) usually aren't. The script is like a FAQ. They are taking you through the same troubleshooting steps a trained engineer would go through to diagnose the problem. If its a simple remedy, then it is more cost effective to let a non-engineer resolve the issue. You don't want your engineers spending a large part of their day on routine problems. Once the determination is made that it is not a typical problem and requires real thought to resolve (an "interesting" or "new" problem), that is when it is worth assigning the case to an engineer.
It helps to know how to get past the level 1 support quickly. I usually take note of some/all of the steps they have me go through (the usual checklist includes: power cycle the modem, connect the computer directly to the modem, ping tests, check the sync indicator, etc) so that when I do call in, I can be short with the level 1's and tell them "Yes, I checked all that already, its still not working. Here's what it's diong...". Be able to include enough technical details so the support rep knows you know what you're talking about. That usually works, and it makes the best use of everyone's time.
Then again, I'm an engineer myself, so by the time I call in, I'm 90% sure its a problem in the telcom's equipment.
One of the points of this article, is that because of the OLPC project we have "lost mind share" by "wasting" our time on "naive feel-good showboating".
What about the "lost mindshare" I now have as a result of "wasting" my time reading this FUD ??!!
Besides, did you seriously expect a Stanford professor to say that a project led by a former MIT person is a good idea?
Well said. There are a lot of sh** CS jobs out there. The good ones are hard to find. And the money is around half what it used to be.
I'd definitely recommend a dual major, or at least a useful minor. I had a second major in Business Administration, and it helps immensely out here in the real world. My CS coursework had almost nothing that required you to work as part of a team, vs. the management courses where you get it practically from day one. Technical ability is essentially viewed as a commodity... most resumes I look at, when I see a CS degree it just means you are "trainable". What will differentiate you is your ability to work well with the non-technical members of the team. I'm always looking at what activities you did besides just the geek coursework.
Of course ADA infringes on your freedom. It does so inorder to "promote the general welfare". There are plenty of laws on the books that infringe on your freedom. Obviously you don't own a business, in the U.S. or anywhere else, or you'd realize this. A few examples:
No it isn't, since ADA. Its exactly this attitude that ADA is trying to address.
Yep. Someone from Sun marketing must have gone over to Apple. Each "minor" rev of 10.x has been a major rev. And each one has been different cat (Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard).
I think maybe their marketing guys are afraid to go to 11 because then they'd have to call it OS XI or something (keep in mind many consumers, myself included, call it "oh ess exx" not "oh ess ten"). We should see something different after 10.9, sooner if they run out of cat names.
This is admittedly off-topic, but...the fix for the "error dialog about not having a manifest file to load" is to generate a manifest (linker setting and also the new "manifest tool") and use the new "assembly" based deployment model. The release builds of CRT in VS 2005 have a runtime check which throws an exception if you don't have either a manifest resource (embedded) or .manifest file (detached) for your application. In other words, M$ is FORCING you to use their new deployment model now, whether you want to or not. And just for the sake of doing it - the .DLL's themselves don't care how they are deployed as they still run on pre-manifest systems.
Yay assemblies! They're like frameworks, except without versioning and without the development time support! More effort to build and you get nothing out of it.
Yeah there is. As other posters have mentioned, its called "fair use". DRM preventing you from burning your MP3 to CD so that you can play it on your CD player, is one example of fair use being violated. It is a legitimate complaint. Copyright is a tricky beast. You owe it to yourself to learn more about it, its clear that you don't understand the issues. Ultimately, DRM is incompatible with fair use.
Related, I should also point out that copyrights are supposed to expire, eventually. I have no idea whether DRM schemes account for that, but I doubt it. With DRM, you can (theoretically anyway) use technology hold your copyright forever.
Oh, and think about DRM the next time you visit a library. What would be on the shelves if books had DRM?
I hear where you're coming from. In my case, it turned out differently. I saved the marriage and lost the job. It wasn't easy - I basically had to walk out of the job, with nothing lined up, and we lived off savings and odd jobs for a few months. But I did eventually find an family-friendly employer. I say we let the young, single people work the 80+ hour weeks, and wonder why the old timers don't. Call us lazy if you want, then you'll hit burnout and realize what we've been on about the whole time. Your lack of planning is not my crisis!
Uh, if you say so. IANAL, but I know of a case where a wrongful death judgment was discharged through bankruptcy. If you can get rid of that, defamation shouldn't be a problem.
... you can use lawyers. From the linked story (emphasis added):
"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"
...
Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
That's the part I find appalling. Given that the defendant did not appear in court (either because the summons was not delivered, or she couldn't afford it after having house destroyed by flood, or whatever), I find it pretty unlikely "fairness" (or lack thereof) of the comments could have been established. Even if she used the words "fraud" and "con artist", doesn't necessarily mean its libel. You can say that about someone if its true, but you have to be able to back it up. And we have know way of knowing, since defendant was unable to tell her side in court, and is unlikely to do so in the future
Whether or not the original accusations were true, IMO instead of salvaging her reputation by seeking this judgment, she has destroyed it. I personally would not want to seek help from someone who has been known to sue her dissatisfied customers into oblivion. I hope it was worth it.
*sigh* Yet another patent that fails the "non-obvious" test... ranks right up there with Amazon's One-Click in my book.
I agree. Since you are teaching an intro class, I think the fewer obstacles you put between the student and the language concepts, the better.
Sure at some point in a professional CS career it is important to learn about the build pipeline, but unless you are a compiler designer, that knowledge is only important when you need to diagnose a broken pipeline. Seriously - if the pipeline always worked, there is no reason to know it, other than historical trivia. But it doesn't, so you need to, at some level. I guess for me the analogy is the C++ programmer needing to know assembler, so that they can diagnose code-generation bugs. Useful knowledge to have, but not something I'd inflict on a newcomer. Ditto for sort algorithms/implementations: its more important to me to know when to use a given algorithm, than knowing how to implement one. I would hope that you rarely implement common algorithms from scratch, and instead, that you use a well-tested reliable library. Same argument for containers (STL, java.util vs. hand-coding a container).
How did this get rated "insightful"? It is the most obvious counter-argument to make, a trained monkey could do it. And its a Red Herring.
Its easy to blame the people blaming MySpace, because its hard to think about a real solution to the problem. Hint: like most things in life, its somewhere in the middle.
You could use this same silly counter-argument to get bar owners to stop checking ID. After all, any "responsible" parent would "always" know what their children are up to, wouldn't they? This isn't about putting the blame on the drug (alcohol, myspace) instead of the user. Some parents, including myself, feel that it is important to give children an opportunity to grow up and make their own decisions, rather than controlling every single aspect of their lives. Guess what? This means that at some point I won't know everything they are doing, I will just have to hope that I taught them well and trust them to make good decisions on their own. Sure they'll make mistakes. This isn't about asking society to raise my kids, its about asking for reasonable precautions to help protect children against criminals.
You'd think MySpace would have learned something from the problems AOL faced a few years back. Or maybe find a lawyer that could spell COPPA.
Subject says it all. I went over to read the linked article and I regretted it. The guy is so painfully clueless on this topic, its hard to know where to begin. His most blatant mis-statement:
"Apple's not interested in a DIY Mac, nor is it concerned with the case-mod culture of the PC."
True Apple isn't big on a DIY system. Neither are most Mac users. But saying that there isn't a case-mod culture among Mac users is completely asinine. MacAddict runs case mod articles - with photos - on a semi-regular basis, all you'd have to do is pick up a back issue or two to see how wrong this statement is. And if you don't know about MacAddict (as I suspect the author doesn't) you really have no business making commentary about Mac users or case-mod culture.
"I don't know about you, but when I buy a computer I want everything to work right."
This of course is one of the top reasons that people buy Macs. The tight integration between the OS and the hardware still beats Windows Plug-and-Pray 9 times out of 10. "Plug it in, and it just works" has been the Apple mantra for *years*. Its what the users expect. Compare to Windows XP, where plugging in a new monitor meant I had to re-install my wireless network driver, or adding memory forces me to register with Microsoft on my next reboot? I'm not sure what's worse, that these things happen or that it doesn't bother me anymore.
There are other serious flaws with the article. It really has no redeeming value, and its just so loaded with flamebait it reflects poorly on the authors of PC Magazine that they even published it.
"Are there any laws on the books that give me the opportunity to fill out the application on paper as opposed to digitally?"
I don't think EOE helps you, but BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) is definitely applicable here. You are absolutely right that being able to work a computer is irrelevant to a job stocking shelves.
If the machine was actually *broken*, the most you can do really is get in touch with Kroeger Mgmt. (the district manager, or whatever), and let them know what an idiot manager they have working at that particular store. I don't think you'll be telling them anything they don't already know, however.
If the machine wasn't broken - a good test for this, incidentally, is have a friend fill out an app on the machine - then you have a good case. Because being able to successfully navigate their piece-of-sh** software is not a BFOQ, it is reasonable to ask to be accommodated. That doesn't mean they have to give you a paper app. It does mean they should assist you with completing the application process. Whether privacy policy will win out vs BFOQ is one for the courts. But you do have something, there.
If you are a member of a protected class, and think you are being discriminated against because of that (see the other post about that tactic), then again, a good test is to have a friend who isn't in your class fill out an app, and see how they are treated. Be sure to have the friend pretend (if needed) to have trouble with the software. If they are helped and you are not, you've got something. The ACLU will be interested, even if no one else is.
Incidentally, on the subject of EOE and BFOQ... it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on, for example, gender, provided you can show that it is a BFOQ. An exotic dancer, for instance.
This is all based on HR 101 and some electives I took as part of my BA. I'm not actually working in HR these days, but I have a little insight into some of the issues because of Management school.
HTH!