Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
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).
If you was your time upfront and someone beats you to the market, who cares about the engineering!! If you capture the market for a new idea you can use a more formal process for v2 while your competitors missed out.
Just like MySpace beat FaceBook to market and Netscape beat IE to market. Getting that first mover advantage really fueled their meteoric rise and long stay at the top.
The major issue is handing over access keys to a corporate VPN to a random bloke in another country. Frankly, I'm quite impressed with the general concept, but introducing a huge security breach isn't going to make you popular, he should have just had the guy email him code and the ctrl-V it himself, cutting the security breach out, he'd probably never have been caught unless there was something unexpected in the code.
Exactly. Skip the VPN issue and he'd probably still be making a ton of money for sitting on his ass all day.
Except that is an article from 2010 about possible insider trading, not about the alleged market manipulation by driving down the stock price through rumors and FUD like seemed to start happening in 2012.
The article explicitly talks about insider trading by market manipulation of channel checks.
Someone is getting rich out of this
And the SEC is starting to investigate
th), followed by project updates from other teams (where pertinent) and finally a free topic session to discuss any issue.
Okay, just to be clear.
In your meetings, everyone waits while one person tells his status, then everyone waits while a 2nd person tells his status, and so on.
How is this more efficient than everyone composing a 1-paragraph summary and sending it around in E-mail? How is this more efficient than the boss visiting everyone one-at-a-time, taking notes, and typing up a summary E-mail?
How is a "free topics" meeting with everyone better than "targetted topics" meetings with only the people involved? Aren't impropmtu get-togethers with a couple of people in the bosse's office more effective than big meetings in the conference room?
I'm confused. What about your meetings make them good meetings?
What I've found is that if you don't meet together as a team, then you can't make sure that everyone's on the same page. You'd be surprised how many times someone brings up a problem and it turns out that 2 other people knew about it and hadn't said anything yet or knew about it and figured out how to fix it (or work around it). Email isn't as good because you don't know if everyone read it or understood it. Impromptu get-togethers are encouraged, but aren't a substitute for a regularly scheduled team meeting. Things are often handled quicker and easier if everyone's in one place at the same time. In addition, as the leader, I had a busy schedule, so spending 30 minutes together with everyone was more efficient than spending 10 minutes with 5-10 different people. And I often had project updates from the management that I would pass along. I only had to talk about it once and answer questions once while knowing that everyone is aware of it. Targetted topics meetings are scheduled for topics that aren't of interest to the general team. Free topics are usually for non project updates (going on vacation, doctor's appt,, etc) which the rest of the team should be aware of. And strict meeting rules were enforced. If a topic started going on too long (usually longer than a minute or two), then discussion was stopped and a separate meeting was scheduled to handle that particular issue with only the people needed. Most of the meetings were done in 10-15 minutes and were scheduled no closer than once a week. But they are necessary to make sure the project runs smoothly and everyone is aware of what's going on with their teammates and the rest of the project team and don't get stuck in their own silo without knowing what else is going on.
Some meetings are necessary obviously... I'm in my first senior developer position now and I've instituted hard limits on meetings because it frustrates me to no end when idiots discuss minutiae for valuable hours of my team's time.
The issue isn't meetings, it's bad meetings. Each meeting should have a set agenda and a time limit for each topic. When I was a senior developer, I would have a weekly status meeting with my team. The meeting always started off with basic status reports (what did you do, what are you stuck on, what do you need help with), followed by project updates from other teams (where pertinent) and finally a free topic session to discuss any issue. If something took more than a couple minutes to discuss, we'd table it for a separate meeting with only the people that needed to be there. Meetings should exist to make sure everyone's on the same page and so people who need something have a forum to ask for it. Without a firm agenda (which is aggressively held to) meetings lower productivity.
No tablet comes close to the experience of the iPad; no phone comes close to the effectiveness of the iPhone line. No question-- I'm no fanboy
It's only taken the iPhone 2 years to catch up partially with the features which sold me on the far better Android platform (yes I'm am now an Android fanboy) with things like a useful notification bar, multitasking, or home screen widgets, and even now what I don't miss is paying 99c for every bloody app no matter how basic.
There's a difference between features and experiences. Users care more about the overall experience a lot more than a set of features. They are even willing to go without features if they like the experience.
Having implemented OAuth1.0 and 2.0 services for communicating with various platforms, I was amazed at the lack of any security in Oauth 2.0. As mentioned by others, it completely relies on SSL/TLS, which is itself somewhat broken. From what I have gathered, it's simpler. That's about it. Actually, I prefer OAuth 1.0 and have modeled many of my own APIs after it.
were I rich, I would be all over autonomous vehicle for a few reasons: 1) you can probably drive it yourself if you want to speed 2) I could hit the pub and get wrecked and have the car drive me home without worrying about getting arrested for DUI
The way DUI laws are written currently, I wonder if you could get a DUI for being in an autonomous vehicle while intoxicated simply because you have the option of taking over control.
That's a fairly broad statement, "GWT doesn't hold up well". I'm curious to see why you think this is the case - my (extensive) experience has been the opposite - GWT scales well and you can do stuff with it that is painful with other technologies (eg. works across just about every browser - even with braindead IE6's limitations; you can also development very modular and re-usable components with GWT). So yeah, I'm interested to hear what general-purpose solution you think is better than GWT and why.
Most of my experience with GWT was with pre-2.0. We had issues when trying to bring in stand-alone pages in addition to the web app we had. It was difficult to integrate existing non-GWT pages with GWT.