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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:hmm... (Score 1) 166

I honestly have no idea how this company got funding, but if they make a lot of noise, it will be fun to watch them crash and burn.

I take that back. If you're the type of company that contracts from Accenture or Oracle or HP, then you're likely to do better with the system these guys are suggesting.

Comment Re:hmm... (Score 1) 166

It's worse than you expect. One of the first things the paper deals with is intellectual property. Apparently if people didn't worry about losing their IP, all our software problems would be solved.

That + concatenation. If we only use concatenation, and don't let the customers dictate requirements to us (seriously), then all our problems are solved. I honestly have no idea how this company got funding, but if they make a lot of noise, it will be fun to watch them crash and burn.

Comment Re:I am sure the women in the crowd will like this (Score 1) 105

The article is not flattering. When the article says, "She also saw that Babbage's mathematics needed more imaginative presentation," it's not being complimentary. It is a compensatory way to suggest that she really didn't know how to program the machine. The wording of the article is very careful, for example, here is how it describes that she didn't know how to program:

Lovelace is sometimes loosely described as the first computer programmer. She did produce an elegant set of tables showing how the engine could calculate Bernoulli numbers, but based on equations supplied by Babbage. Lovelace's originality lay in her conceptual definitions of the engine's mathematical functions, and her brilliant speculations on its design possibilities, going far beyond anything Babbage himself articulated. She wrote: “We may say most aptly that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraic patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves.”

Overall, the article is somewhat insulting, implying that "the only contribution a woman can make is to bring her imaginative, creative views to the table when she copies men. Put her in marketing." The article doesn't quite say that, but it is the natural conclusion from what the article says.

Comment Re:Not real science (Score 1) 288

Anyone who likes power.
Just as often, contractors who get money from the regulation. For example, insurance companies who favored Obamacare because they thought they would make money off the insurance mandate.

Another example, a certain online dating website offered a background-check service. They lobbied the government to require that all dating websites have background checks on their users. Fortunately that one didn't pass.

Another example, in California, a company that made portable classrooms lobbied for a requirement that all schools use portable classrooms. Now a bunch of schools across the state are stuck with these eyesores.

The more complex the regulation, the easier it is to hide stuff like that in it.

Comment Re:Climate trolls consistently misleading (Score 1) 288

as opposed to something having drastic costs right now. Record storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, and heat waves are costing hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives right now.

Are you saying without climate change, we will no longer have record storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, and heat waves?

Comment Re:Barriers to women often subtle or invisible (Score 3, Informative) 258

The main problem is that a lot of firms talk about diversity, but aren't great on actually hiring women in tech. And when they get hired, getting shunted into more "traditional" roles, like being asked to cover the phones or front desk (as a female) when the male interns aren't asked to do that.

I would be really interested if you had evidence of this, because it goes directly contrary to my experience.

Comment Re:Companies don't get it.... (Score 1) 462

I'm with you on every point except your agile comments. Yes many companies get it very wrong, but many companies get waterfall just as wrong. For me, coming from a massively waterfall environment to an agile environment has dropped my stress level considerably. Here is how agile (Scrum, specifically) is supposed to benefit you:

Is there any way to do waterfall right? I mean in theory it could work if people knew exactly what they wanted, but I haven't run into it yet. Usually when they see it implemented it turns out that's not actually what they meant or they had a lot of other conditions and features too that it turns out wasn't in the spec. That said, at least with waterfall you have a real plan, where you sometimes have to cross a desert where there's fucking nothing of value other than getting to the other side. Sometimes there's just not any quick wins, you need to make something big that solves a lot.

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.