Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Simple methodology (Score 4, Interesting) 308

by BronsCon (#49144607) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates
I have a project that was due last week that I haven't started on yet. I got the deposit check the day I handed over the SoW, but didn't get the signed SoW back until last week, 6 weeks later. As per the terms of the SoW, I'll reschedule it when I find time.

Most of the delays I encounter are caused by someone else; either the need to refactor someone else's shit code (that I wasn't allowed to review before providing an estimate, of course), delayed approval for the work, delayed access to resources, any number of external forces. Very rarely do I exceed my estimated *hours* for a project unless changes are requested (but then I'm not exceeding the estimate, either, since I make the client either agree to a new estimate or accept a refund of any portion of their deposit not already applied to the hours I've worked), but all too often I find myself completing projects well past their due date because some resource wasn't made available to me until after that date had lapsed.

Fortunately, I foresaw that unforeseen things would happen when drafting the boilerplate language of my SoW and covered all of those cases. I go over the entire SoW with my clients before starting a project and make sure they know what the triggers are for a re-quote, what will cause the project to be delayed, and under what circumstances they're entitled to a refund of any deposit they pay (e.g. if they back out of the project once I've started work, I'm deducting my hours from that). As a result of that, and perhaps a bit of luck, I haven't had any disputes over project scope, budget, or timeline, and the one client I did have back out of a project simply said they no longer had the budget (they were being sued) and told me to hold on to the remainder of their deposit as they'd be back to finish the project after they lawsuit ended, hinting that, even if that didn't happen, the small sum would make no difference going forward (of course, I'm sitting on that money for now, and if they fully back out of the project I'll insist that they either accept the refund or sign a document releasing the funds to me).

That was one thing that really pissed me off when I was working for someone else; I had no control over external interruptions or delays and it was usually the person interrupting and delaying me who was holding me accountable for all of them. I'm not out to scam anyone, but I always felt like I was when dealing with my previous employer.

Comment: Re:Well someone has to do it (Score 2) 308

by BronsCon (#49143045) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates
He may have been able to write more maintainable, more stable, better tested, and altogether cleaner code, given what he asked. Possibly in half of his worst-case estimate of 2 years. In the long run, the crap that needed to be slapped together to get the project "done", in 4x the time he was allotted, will end up costing the company more than giving him what he asked for in order to do it right. You must be an MBA.

Comment: Re:Simple methodology (Score 5, Insightful) 308

by BronsCon (#49142953) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates
Depending on how far along in the project you are, it's reasonable to expect changing a single word in the spec to have a major impact on the project. Consider:

Paint my car black.

So you do all the prep work, car's primed with a dark primer, black paint is mixed and ready to go, then this change request comes in:

Paint my car white.

Well, now you've wasted the paint you just tinted black, and you can't paint white on top of dark primer (well, you can, but you need many more coats), so you've got to redo the prep work. That means waiting while the primer fully cures, so you can sand it off properly; otherwise, it'll gum your sandpaper. then re-prime, then you can paint. Assuming you don't see

Paint my car forest green.

in the meantime.

That was one word. Yes, one line matters.

Comment: Re:Lots of corporations wanted this badly (Score 1) 573

by BronsCon (#49142401) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

Okay, let's break that down:

The rules are eight pages.

Pretty clear. Rules = code. 8 pages of rules will be codified.

However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages.

An additional 79 pages of rules that could have been codified won't be. Can they be later? Sure, whether they were in this document or not, they can always be written and voted on later.

Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector.

Oh, look, more rules they considered, but that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

Even more things they talked about that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

For reference, to codify means To turn into law.

In short, it's 300+ pages of shit they discussed before arriving at the 8 page subsection of the existing Title II that will apply to internet services. We don't get to see the 8 pages of stuff that does apply, or the 300+ pages of discussion that does not, just yet; however, a reasonable person can probably guess which of the 33 pages of Title II might have made it into the applicable 8 pages.

That said, I wouldn't expect you to have that ability.

Comment: Re:No, you abandon keys (Score 1) 94

by BronsCon (#49129183) Attached to: Advertising Tool PrivDog Compromises HTTPS Security

You can change your key, but everyone is made AWARE the key has changed and you have to INFORM them why it changed and for what reason and they have to accept it or not.

Or, someone else changes the key, MITM's the site, injects a brief explanation of why the key was changed into a banner on the page (oh, but you have to accept the new key in order to see that, assuming the site uses SSL everywhere as it should) or spoofs an email with the explanation, or spoofs a social media campaign with the explanation, whatever.

Maybe they target an individual user, that user gets the spoofed email and sees the spoofed tweets, and accepts the new key. Company would never be the wiser, since no fake notices would go out publicly, and the user, well...

This would work for you, this would work for me, hell it'd work for a handful of people here, because we know to spend longer than the time it takes to click "OK" to investigate these things. The real problem with your solution is that 99.999% of users either don't know to do that, or simply don't think it's a big enough deal to warrant actually doing it. You think it'd be a better situation based on your experience with a few competent and security-minded people, but the reality is we're the minority and the situation would end up much worse as a result.

Comment: Re:Overlooking one small detail... (Score 2) 71

by BronsCon (#49122365) Attached to: UK Scientists Claim 1Tbps Data Speed Via Experimental 5G Technology
divide that 100Mhz channel into 1000 1ms time slots (or 10000 100 microsecond time slots and allow 1000 users 10 apiece, or keep dividing into smaller slices as the technology allows, to reduce latency) and provide 1gbps to 1000 users. Or 10000 1ms slots, to provide 100mbps to 10000 users.

At the 1gbps per user level, that's a little less capacity (without overselling) than current towers, considerable more if oversold at current rates. At the 100mbps level, that's insanely better coverage in high-population-density areas, as each channel can handle 10000 simultaneous users without overselling, closer to 20k if oversold. At which point, interference becomes an issue and you have 20k users on the channel, each getting 10-20mbps; which is a huge improvement over the current situation during a conference, where the most anyone is lucky to get is a few kbps, due to radio interference, while the hard line running to the tower sits there mostly unused. It's not even a matter of the tower not having a large enough pipe to the network, the radios can't keep up with demand, so the pipe largely goes unused in these instances.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Working...