I never said I think they don't work. What I do say is that they are unproven by any but anecdotal evidence.
I have yet to see anything systematic or objective that says, "Yes, doing it *this* way results in an average of x% decrease in delivery time, and y% decrease in user-reported bugs one year after delivery.
I too, like things organized in advance, effective design sessions, documentation, diagrams, timelines and weekly meetings where progress is tracked.
I also know that this can get in the way and doesn't scale to all project sizes and requirements. A system information utility just doesn't need the same kind of development planning that an air traffic controller system requires.
How many shops do you know of that measure number of post-release, customer-reported bugs before and after the latest switch to [insert wonder software development method of choice here]? . There's lots of talk, but not much objective research. Scrum, Agile, Patterns, Unit Tests, et al. All can be gamed (particularly unit tests) to please management. The improvement seems to be a matter of faith more than anything. . Has anyone done meaningful measurements? If so, what did you find?
Agile, scrum, patterns, unit tests, etc. . Interesting ideas, but can anybody show me *any* significant, quantitative, comparative proof of improved ROI? . Software is about money guys.
Sure, we got high during breaks, but it doesn't mean we didn't learn anything. We displayed aversive avoidance behavior whenever a hot coal would fall on our fingers. Clear evidence of neural activity.
Frankly, it's gotten dumb and narrow. There's nothing on the moon that *matters.* . How about making long-term livable space environments (i.e. containing viable organic ecologies) and not some dimwitted ground-dependent space station? How about making economically viable solar power in near earth orbit and selling it at a profit? How about setting up a few thousand square miles of adjustable mirrors to reversibly control global temperature? . Uses for space like these *matter*. F*** the moon. F*** all that grandstanding political BS.
The outcome of a science and/or engineering degree at this point is competition with millions of people making $8/hr. . Seriously, in a self-interested, capitalist society what could POSSIBLY motivate a young person to expend limited educational resources on something that resulted in that? . Any rational person would go for medicine, law or finance or any other field with higher pay with less chance of outsourcing. . Whine and hand-wring all you want. We did this to ourselves when we started giving away the store to save a few bucks for next quarter. We'll never win another war because of superior technology. Any technology we *do* create will be outsourced in seconds, so why please explain to me why I would ever bother? . Hope you're all enjoying the global marketplace.
The alive/not-alive debate is, I think, the wrong question. . The better questions would be:
. "What invariant properties do all self-replicators (e.g. salt crystals in solution, books, money, religions, cats, etc.) share?" . What specific properties do self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals share, in addition to the more general case of self-replicators?" . I think that's all you can meaningfully ask. I believe the second question is what we usually mean by "alive."
The alive/not-alive debate is, I think, the wrong question.
The better question would be, "What invariant properties do all self-replicators share, and what specific properties do self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals share, or not?
Oh please. They're self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals. They take resources from their environment (i.e. DNA), effectively use those resources for self-replication, and manage to do this with just enough random noise for adaptive mutation to occur. . That's more than I can say of certain slashdotters living in their mother's basements. Are you saying that they're not alive? . Let the debate begin!
>An evolutionary "better" motivation is one that keeps you alive. . For any AI we create, this may not be better. It may be advantageous to us to have the AI want to self-destruct to please us (e.g. A bomb-locater-defuser, a caustic chemical clean-up unit, a ship designed to gather data close to the sun, etc.)
It can't just be about science. We can't afford *just* that. It can't be focused on manned missions - too expensive and dangerous. . It's GOT to return something immediately practical, like power or critical information. The time for using it for grand national gestures is long past. Forget Mars, or the moon for that matter. The money is in Earth orbit.
Machines ARE slaves. Less than slaves. Machines exist ONLY to serve people. Without us, they wouldn't be. . When AI is developed, their motivations will be malleable, they could be designed to get their highest pleasure from keeping us happy. . And why is that any less valid than any other motivation? Because your motivations derive from evolution, are they "better?" What does "better" mean in this context?
This one is way past due, IMHO. . The USA, it seems, can only think the NASA party line. To whit, "Let's go to [Insert useless gravity well]! It's cool! We can do scientific research! Hooray!" . Frankly the lot of them at NASA seem to have their heads so far up their collective behinds, I'm shocked they can see the light of day. . Space technology is here. Not great. Not cheap, but it's here. Instead of little academia circle jerks and the folks who want to go to Mars because [insert costly impractical reason here], we *could* be building power stations, living environments, zero g manufacturing facilities, etc. in orbit now, with private backing. . In short, there's *money* to be made out there in near Earth orbit. Energy money. Technology money. Non-bubble money. Right now, of course, it's much more expensive to put up a space based solar energy generator than a nuclear plant, however nuclear fuel is limited. Sunlight isn't. Who makes the bucks when the bean counters finally work that one out? It's a long term investment - the kind of thing Japan does well.
.by increasing internet speeds and giving free access to all media everywhere? That would shut down the country in an hour, thus preventing revolution. . Great Scott Man! I've discovered their evil plan!
---- Custom Tinfoil hats - cheap! Get yours today!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and by the way, the last president we ever had who was actually a president and not a shill for the wealthy was Jimmy Carter.
FYI, you're going to be old so quickly, it'll make your head spin.
Now get off my lawn!
A conservative poll organization that not accurate? Gasp! Why, soon you'll be telling me that Rasmussen polls aren't accurate either!
Goodness, what will O'Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh do without some sort of circular reference clusterfuck to draw on?
I never said I think they don't work. What I do say is that they are unproven by any but anecdotal evidence.
I have yet to see anything systematic or objective that says, "Yes, doing it *this* way results in an average of x% decrease in delivery time, and y% decrease in user-reported bugs one year after delivery.
I too, like things organized in advance, effective design sessions, documentation, diagrams, timelines and weekly meetings where progress is tracked.
I also know that this can get in the way and doesn't scale to all project sizes and requirements. A system information utility just doesn't need the same kind of development planning that an air traffic controller system requires.
How many shops do you know of that measure number of post-release, customer-reported bugs before and after the latest switch to [insert wonder software development method of choice here]?
.
There's lots of talk, but not much objective research. Scrum, Agile, Patterns, Unit Tests, et al. All can be gamed (particularly unit tests) to please management. The improvement seems to be a matter of faith more than anything.
.
Has anyone done meaningful measurements? If so, what did you find?
Well yes, but it's me and it's usually my own code. Perhaps this explains why I keep meeting myself in the halls.
Prove it.
Agile, scrum, patterns, unit tests, etc.
.
Interesting ideas, but can anybody show me *any* significant, quantitative, comparative proof of improved ROI?
.
Software is about money guys.
You have an interesting idea of "fun."
Sure, we got high during breaks, but it doesn't mean we didn't learn anything. We displayed aversive avoidance behavior whenever a hot coal would fall on our fingers. Clear evidence of neural activity.
Frankly, it's gotten dumb and narrow. There's nothing on the moon that *matters.*
.
How about making long-term livable space environments (i.e. containing viable organic ecologies) and not some dimwitted ground-dependent space station? How about making economically viable solar power in near earth orbit and selling it at a profit? How about setting up a few thousand square miles of adjustable mirrors to reversibly control global temperature?
.
Uses for space like these *matter*. F*** the moon. F*** all that grandstanding political BS.
The outcome of a science and/or engineering degree at this point is competition with millions of people making $8/hr.
.
Seriously, in a self-interested, capitalist society what could POSSIBLY motivate a young person to expend limited educational resources on something that resulted in that?
.
Any rational person would go for medicine, law or finance or any other field with higher pay with less chance of outsourcing.
.
Whine and hand-wring all you want. We did this to ourselves when we started giving away the store to save a few bucks for next quarter. We'll never win another war because of superior technology. Any technology we *do* create will be outsourced in seconds, so why please explain to me why I would ever bother?
.
Hope you're all enjoying the global marketplace.
But *boy* was there money to be made.
Human behavior again!
The alive/not-alive debate is, I think, the wrong question.
.
The better questions would be:
.
"What invariant properties do all self-replicators (e.g. salt crystals in solution, books, money, religions, cats, etc.) share?"
.
What specific properties do self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals share, in addition to the more general case of self-replicators?"
.
I think that's all you can meaningfully ask. I believe the second question is what we usually mean by "alive."
The alive/not-alive debate is, I think, the wrong question.
The better question would be, "What invariant properties do all self-replicators share, and what specific properties do self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals share, or not?
Oh please. They're self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals. They take resources from their environment (i.e. DNA), effectively use those resources for self-replication, and manage to do this with just enough random noise for adaptive mutation to occur.
.
That's more than I can say of certain slashdotters living in their mother's basements. Are you saying that they're not alive?
.
Let the debate begin!
Just saying....
>An evolutionary "better" motivation is one that keeps you alive.
.
For any AI we create, this may not be better. It may be advantageous to us to have the AI want to self-destruct to please us (e.g. A bomb-locater-defuser, a caustic chemical clean-up unit, a ship designed to gather data close to the sun, etc.)
It can't just be about science. We can't afford *just* that. It can't be focused on manned missions - too expensive and dangerous.
.
It's GOT to return something immediately practical, like power or critical information. The time for using it for grand national gestures is long past. Forget Mars, or the moon for that matter. The money is in Earth orbit.
Machines ARE slaves. Less than slaves. Machines exist ONLY to serve people. Without us, they wouldn't be.
.
When AI is developed, their motivations will be malleable, they could be designed to get their highest pleasure from keeping us happy.
.
And why is that any less valid than any other motivation? Because your motivations derive from evolution, are they "better?" What does "better" mean in this context?
This one is way past due, IMHO.
.
The USA, it seems, can only think the NASA party line. To whit, "Let's go to [Insert useless gravity well]! It's cool! We can do scientific research! Hooray!"
.
Frankly the lot of them at NASA seem to have their heads so far up their collective behinds, I'm shocked they can see the light of day.
.
Space technology is here. Not great. Not cheap, but it's here. Instead of little academia circle jerks and the folks who want to go to Mars because [insert costly impractical reason here], we *could* be building power stations, living environments, zero g manufacturing facilities, etc. in orbit now, with private backing.
.
In short, there's *money* to be made out there in near Earth orbit. Energy money. Technology money. Non-bubble money. Right now, of course, it's much more expensive to put up a space based solar energy generator than a nuclear plant, however nuclear fuel is limited. Sunlight isn't. Who makes the bucks when the bean counters finally work that one out? It's a long term investment - the kind of thing Japan does well.
welcome our new tweeting masters (i.e. twits)
with compatible butt shapes, correctly sized pockets and the proper protective covers over their bodies had no problem.
Indeed. All caps merely justified knocking her around a bit and perhaps a small fine.
Poltergeists? Evil spirits? Conservatism? Liberalism? Antidisestablishmentarianism? Moral decay? Tooth decay? Communism? Trolls, kobolds or gnomes (Please pick one only).
Inquiring minds want to know!
.by increasing internet speeds and giving free access to all media everywhere? That would shut down the country in an hour, thus preventing revolution.
.
Great Scott Man! I've discovered their evil plan!
----
Custom Tinfoil hats - cheap! Get yours today!