The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Study: (didn't look it up)
Article body: Between 10 and 14 samples came back negative for fecal coliforms and total coliforms (typical test)
Article Title: No harmful bacteria
You: Not a problem
That quality decay is typical - and as usual, we could explain away the study-body-title decay with stupid money-grabbing non-researching quasi-trained semi-professional sheeple-attention-grabbing "journalists".
This doesn't explain the leap of faith to "No problem", though. Nowhere ever is stated that "The Government" said "That corpse wasn't a problem". That's simply crappy reporting, exaggeration, attention grabbing on from you. I am a bit disappointed, I held you to a higher standard.
Furthermore, the article states:
It's likely there was sufficient chlorine in the tank to destroy any bacteria that might have otherwise been present. and Another series of tests will be conducted before health officials will approve the hotel's water supply for drinking, he said.
You must be one of those big government liberals I'm always hearing about on Fox News.
I guarantee you when the zombie apocalypse comes the government will tell us to 'stay home' and put 'plastic over the windows' and 'everything is under control' right up until the point you and your friends are alone in a warehouse fending off hoards of zombies with a shotgun and a chainsaw.
At that point you'll turn to the busty dark haired beauty in the tattered tanktop who is at your side and say, "OMG, MehGerbil was right!", and she'll say, "Kiss me you hansome devil", and you'll lean in for the kiss but she'll bite your neck because she's a zombie now - and I'll be like RFLOL.
If a child poops in the local swimming pool the entire pool has to be emptied of occupants but if you put a freakin' corpse in a hotel water supply for two weeks there isn't a problem - according to the tests.
Well I'm not really all that big on govvamint either but I might agree with them somewhat here.
If you were a floater in a water tank, I'd be happier to drink the water than if you dropped a floater in it.
According to the government teh small amounts of chlorine in the drinking water killed off all the bad bacteria whereas the eye-redding levels of chlorine in the local swimming pool doesn't quite cut it.
Entire corpse rotting in a tank of drinking water for two weeks: No problemo.
Toddler poops his diaper on the other end of the pool: Run for your life.
When the Columbia was still in orbit, NASA on the ground had a pretty good idea that the reentry would end in catastrophe. They chose to keep them in the dark. They didn't want a small crew on a small ship to panic. If that calmness was worth keeping them in the dark, do you think the government would do everything they could to keep the public from panicking (unless it fits their agenda).
<layer>If a child poops in the local swimming pool the entire pool has to be emptied of occupants but if you put a freakin' corpse in a hotel water supply for two weeks there isn't a problem - according to the tests.
That is an over simplification of both of those situations.
You must understand that this new crap has been developed to occupy managers with no software developement background. There is a new class rising, the MBA class, they have invented SCRUM just to mix with developers and take advantage of them.
That's the thing. Management skills and programming skills are completely unrelated; being fantastic at one doesn't imply any competence at all in the other.
If you're a good programmer, you need a manager to handle the things that you shouldn't be spending your time on, but those things don't include designing the code or deciding what needs to be done to make the product meet customer requirements. Agile puts the responsibility for those in the hands architects and developers, which is where it should be.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I'm not convinced there is any such thing as an "IT project". There are loads of "business projects" which include IT components, though.
After 25 years I'm convinced there are IT projects that may, if completed, serve a business need. Really doesn't matter which way around you frame it, all the successful projects have been technology led, all the bad ones, business led. That is, where the manager, for instance, is from the business side and has no technical competence at all; the expectations go from unrealistic to demanding to desperate as they struggle to understand what it is they are supposed to be managing. The problem always appears to be that the non-technical manager simply has no idea how any of this works, what the real complexities and issues are or, in particular, how to manage the people. By the time they figure it out, for the most part, it's too late.
Pardon my cynicism, been around too long to believe that there are any magic bullets or that one way of doing things is the best. That is why I still think that projects that are technology led and people (that is, the team players) focused work the best, regardless of what flavor of management-speak you color it in with.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum
New? 1986?[^] That's like describing MS-DOS 3.2 as state of the art.
developed to occupy managers with no software developement backgrount
If by "occupy" you mean "improve communications with" and by "managers with no software development background" you mean the people who we write software for then yes.
MBA class, they have invented SCRUM just to mix with developers and take advantage of them.
Curiously, we used SCRUM as a way of cutting the MBAs out of the process so we could communicate better with the people who needed the software. They were much more embedded in the waterfall process that we invariably failed at previously.
Otherwise, it sounds like you aren't doing it right. I realise I'm going against the consensus on this one (if the last thread on Scrum was anything to go by) but I've had very positive experiences with it.
There is a new class rising, the<layer> MBA class,
Welcome to the world, and the world makes me sad. Can't argue with this point.
Sorry, but you are wrong. First it's not new. The first publication is 12 years old.
Second: It was designed because there are so many software projects not going right because of the project management. Of course Scrum mustn't be the tool to cure that problem, but after working for dozens of different software developing companies I know that the most haven't got an idea about project management that's true for the MBA and developers indepently from their generation.
They are taking advantage of you because you allow it. Don't take crap from MBAs! Fight back!
SCRUM/Agile is very flexible set of guidelines. Every company's implementation is different. If you let the MBAs pick the implementation rules, they will naturally pick rules whcih best serve them.
This worked for me:
Study scrum/agile on your own. Find as many web sites/videos as you can with differing views and note the rules/practices which YOU like. Once you are an expert, use those sites as references to justify doing what you want and suggest process changes. Over time, you will become the "scrum expert" and can force the MBAs to obey your evil bidding.
Once YOU are the acknowleged SCRUM expert, you don't need the external references. You will be able to make up new rules and proclaim them to be "process improvements". I am currently working on a "process improvement" which gets me a real office.
Used properly, SCRUM can be a powerful tool which you can exploit to improve the working conditions of you and your fellow programmers.
What would you like to compare it to? One of the great waterfall methods, like SSADM, where you need to know everything before you write any code? Or do you subscribe to the undesigned code and hope school of application development? This is the second thread today where SCRUM has been questioned without addressing any actual, or perceived fault.
SCRUM relies on short, timeboxed development cycles and allows for comparisons of effort across sprints. Developers and users regularly interact to reduce wasted effort on unnecessary or unneeded deliverables. The non-code artefacts are kept to a minimum so that great code can be delivered quickly and due to the rapid cycles without to many bugs.
So what don't you like?
Reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol
Leslie Nielsen said so yesterday. Seriously, you are saying exactly what I said. : [^]
Re: Wow.. SCRUM is **horrible**...
wizardzz 21 Feb '13 - 10:15
Project management ideologies were created to, and continue to exist to, give PM's and other noncoder a**holes jobs. This industry is diluted and hurt by people wanting to be part of it, simply because it pays well, and there is still some growth. These people don't want to, or simply can't code, so they take any other approach to gain entry.
If, nay, when I start my company, everybody will have the ability to code, if you are in a non coding position, that one of your previous jobs will have been coding or you are currently learning. Everyone should understand the love affair with coding, the frustration, the rewards. Everyone. Lawyers, sales, human resources. Everyone.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 27-Oct-16 4:14