Heh, if I had an answer for that, I'd be working to implement it, not dinking around on /.! :P

You can't just throw money at it, but taking money away from public education sure isn't going to make it better. Where my wife went to school while living in Mississippi the school was so poorly funded they were using books that were decades old (and incorrect!), they didn't have enough for all the students so they had to share, had missing/broken windows, and the whole place was in a substantial state of disrepair.

If folks want to cut public education funding to the bone, fine, but don't be surprised when graduation rates drop to the 40% range.

I am a bit spoiled though, my highschool (in south central Wisconsin) had a 97% graduation rate. And the school my son is going to (about 15 miles away from my old school) has had a 100% graduation rate for the last 3 consecutive years. Sure, my property taxes are astronomical compared to Mississippi, but knowing that my son, and all of the kids in his generation, are growing up with the assumption that graduating highschool and persuing secondary education and a career is the "normal" thing to do is damn well worth it!

-Rick

YOU aren't thinking that all public schools are equal under the current system, do you?

Not all public/private/online/home schools are equal. Some public schools are really good, some public schools are really bad. Some private schools are really good, others are complete drivel. Some homeschoolers are really focused, others wind up with mal-adjusted brats that are totally indoctrinated in their parent's beliefs.

Point being, the focus on public schools shouldn't be destroying the good along with the bad, but improving the bad to perform as well as the good.

-Rick

This is actually pretty common and any manager worth his spit aught to be able to tell the difference between "Effort" and "Duration" estimates and should have a rough idea of what percent of your time is targeted at the project.

For example, if you said it would take you 240 hours to complete the project (effort), and I know that you're only going to be able to put about 50% of your time towards the project, that the total duration is likly going to be around 12 weeks.

If I really need that project done in 8 weeks, it means I've got to find ways to get 50% of your non-project time removed from your plate. If that means getting someone else on the team to look at the network issue or finding ways to mitigate the impact of the move on you, so be it, but I, as a manager, need to find a way to get you up to 75% of your time as project time.

This is actually pretty challenging. By default, under best circumstances, assume that any average employee is only going to have 90% of their time available. The other 10% goes to checking email, answering phone calls, bathroom breaks, etc... Typically, I like to estimate 80%, especially for people who have to bounce between projects or are on user-centric projects as there will inevidibly be delays and thrashing.

Even with that 80%, you're going to lose some portion of it to meetings. Heck, most folks have atleast 2 hours of meetings a week for status updates, tech reviews, performance evals, planning, etc... Each two hours of meetings is another 6 1/4% off that 80% number.

So as another Sr Dev/Jr Manager individual, I'd say keep making sure that your manager is aware that your estimates are for Effort, not duration, and make sure he/she is knoledgable about your schedule and other responsibilities.

-Rick

Nice! Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

-Rick

Everyong knows: Fast, Cheap, or Good - pick two.

But not everyone knows its correlary:

Slow, Expensive, or Wrong - pick one.

-Rick

But at 600 pages, I just don't have the time to sit and read it. What I do have is a 45 minute commute twice a day that make for some excellent listening time. If I could get this as an audio book on CD, I'd pick it up tonight.

-Rick

No, I'm pointing out your incorrect use of analogies.

Your CHOICE in eating RESPONSIBLY, is on you. It isn't illegal for you to eat burgers, it isn't even illegal for you to eat fries. But in this case you are saying that it should be illegal for anyone to eat fries or burgers.

It's a matter of personal responsibility. You can choose to eat healthy, and you can choose to drive safe.

Now I agree that when there is a significant risk to society that laws should be enacted to mitigate them. And ideally, such laws should be introduced as a variety of state laws first so we can measure their impact on behavior. And that is my current rub:

1) The fatal accident rate has been declining as cell phone use has been increasing. This is very likely due to other technological improvements, but it does point out that the risk to society is not significant enough to offset our gains. Additionally, I am still looking for a good source of non-fatal accident data. I've only found one trendline so far (with no available data) and it was trending downward. Which implies that this is less of a impact than it is being made out to be.

2) The states that have enacted anti-cellphone laws are not seeing any significant change in accident rates. This to me says that the current crop of laws are ineffective at changing behavior. So none of them should be used as a template for further state laws or federal law.

3) If these laws have no effect on behavior, provide no additional security for society, and turn legitimate citizens into criminals, with the only benefit being a new form of revenue for the municipality, I see no reason for them to exist. Either find a way to effect behavior, or stick to existing laws that can be applied.

-Rick

I'm all for identifying risks and reducing them. I am not in favor of making existing legal behavior illegal with out some very strong evidence on the behavior's impact on society.

Some states have bans, lets see how they play out for a few years before we go to the national level. And if it turns out that we're not seeing any meaningful reduction in accidents per mile driven, then the laws are NOT reducing accidents, they were just creating a new means of revenue.

-Rick

Banning 'all' phone use while driving is a reasonable solution in search of a problem.

As the use of cell phones has exploded we are seeing less and less accidents per mile driven.

More cell phones correlates with LESS accidents.

That isn't to say that using cell phones is safe, by any means. But it doesn't correlate to, let alone imply, any between increased cell phone usage and an increase in fatal* accidents. (I haven't seen any non-fatal accident data)

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

In 2009 there were 114 traffic fatalities per million miles driven. In 1994 there were 174 per mil. A 1/3rd reduction at the same time that cell phone use was growing exponentially.

Point being: Distracted drivers are distracted drivers, whether it's cell phones, texting, eating, signing, etc... Some drivers are just going to be bad drivers. And while I'm far from Libertarian, I don't see the value in creating laws as a solution when the problem isn't clearly defined.

IF cell phones presented the huge risk to society that some articles are claiming they do, why is it that the fatality rate is dropping (as I expect the accident trend line is as well, but I haven't found the quality of data to back that up that I would like). And if the fatality/accident rate is dropping, with out the creation of a new law, why create the new law?

-Rick

So because it MIGHT be beneficial for YOU to stop eating burgers for the current time, we should make it illegal for ALL people to EVER eat burgers?

-Rick

I am curious if the Judge would feel the same way if a software update prevented his car from going over 45 MPH.

-Rick

Seeing how 2010 had the lowest number of fatalities, and most of the data I've seen has shown a droping trendline of reduced accidents per vehicle mile driven (your link only shows total fatalities, not fatalities per miles driven), wouldn't that be an indicator that current advances are working and what should be done is minor incremental improvement as needed as opposed to sweeping huge changes?

I mean, if we saw a huge spike coming out of the 90's and a trendline pointing north through the 2000's, I'd be fully behind the efforts to ban all cell phone usage in cars.

But what we see is that the vast majority of people using electronics while driving are doing so in a responsible and safe manner. Sure, we should continue to hammer down on people who are not doing so, but I don't see the need for sweeping changes when things are already going in the right direction.

-Rick

Having been in the military myself (USMC 97-01) I would agree that you are instructed to be impartial, but that the juror selection is limited to such a tiny segment of society with such a specific subset of the political spectrum, which for the most part has a significantly limited exposure to other points of view, the guy is pretty much hosed.

The odds of him getting a jury with 1 sympathetic juror, and that juror being willing to lose his career over it, is slim to nil.

-Rick

There's one rub - He commited his crime in Iraq.

Thus the reason this is a military trial, not a civilian court trial. He enjoys the rights provided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which differ significantly from the Bill of Rights.

That is to say... he's screwed.

-Rick

In the civilian world, yes. In the military world, he could stand before a general, or a tribunal, or a jury of his peers, which is to say, a bunch of active duty military guys who have been told over and over for the last year that this guy is evil.

-Rick