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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Yes, inherently unpredictable, needs percentage (Score 1) 108

I always provide my managers with confidence interval estimated times

That is a great idea - I did the same thing years ago at a past employer - sadly the manager knew not what to make of it, so I only did it once. It was more accurate than the "real" numbers then ended up going with.

But I think giving a range of timeframes with percentages is probably the best way to go, if you have to give estimates at all...

Comment Re:Yes, inherently unpredictable, needs percentage (Score 1) 108

That's pretty interesting - I had heard about Fogbugs for years even before StackOverflow but had never used it.

Clocking in and out of a task is annoying, but if you make it easy enough it is not too bad.

Sadly one of the main systems I use at the moment is the execrable TFS, with no change the company will switch from it.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 1) 323

the pursuit of Happiness.

No...you missed that part "the pursuit of Happiness."....

The Feds are not responsible for your happiness, but they are there to help the states and keep law and order to provide an environment where you can pursue your happiness, and basically stay out of your way while you do it. This is different than the oppressive king they were declaring independence from.....

Also, the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of the US Government. The US Constitution is, so, that's the one you need to be reading from....

Comment Yes, inherently unpredictable, needs percentages (Score 2) 108

Even with known and well understood languages/technologies/frameworks, you can and will run into glitches that can take days to complete something that was supposed to take hours - or even longer if the developers are not skilled in debugging and isolating problems!

StackOverflow has helped the industry in this regard, because now a lot of times you can reduce some mysterious problem to a fifteen second StackOverflow search which instantly answers the issue. But not always, and there are always issues when actually programming any design that you can uncover hidden flaws and need to correct them.

What I would love to see is some kind of approach that instead of a time estimate, gave a time along with a percentage of confidence. Two different tasks may seem to take about five hours, with one you are 90% sure it can be done in five hours, with another (like brand new code) it can be more of a 50% five hours. Then you could use this percentage to determine the actual areas of coding likely to cause schedule issues and monitor them more closely. The other nice benefit of this approach is that it factors in the actual developer understanding and abilities more than just a straight hour estimate. Maybe you even put a cap on how high a confidence level a developer is allowed to give until they have met given estimates a number of times already...

Coding is a chaotic system, yes, but it's not like it's fully chaotic, and there are patterns within the chaos I think you could determine over time.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 0) 323

You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?

See my other post in this thread about the General Welfare clause.

You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states, and the ability of the Feds to lay taxation for that purpose. Defense is enumerated and the general welfare of the union was in large part for enumerated limited federal responsibilities for such things.

The union was to be kept strong, and then the states could then be responsible for the citizens in each state. If the states want to do healthcare, etc...sure feel free to do it.

But it doesn't mean "welfare" in the same way that people in this century try to translate it.

he ACA didn't give health care to anyone. It required the freeloaders who weren't buying insurance and driving the rest of our rates up to be adults and finally buy insurance. Maybe you didn't like the subsidies that the poor got, is that what your gripe was? Let me ask you, do you call yourself a Christian? Ask yourself, would Jesus have helped the poor? Should he have helped the poor? Would he have wanted you to help the poor? Is there a reason you don't think the poor should get help with buying the insurance they need? And want to buy?

There already is a safety net for the poor....Medicaid.

But for everyone else, I think we should all have more free HSA type pre-tax savings accounts for routine health needs, not tied to any insurance. If families budget for food, why not budget for routine health needs? Insurance should only be for catastrophic emergencies (hit by a bus, etc).

If this were the case, people would once again shop around for medicine and drs....like they did 40 years ago and prices would be lower.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 2) 323

The problem is routine medical not subsidized is several hundred dollars a visit. Times a wife and two kids and you are talking about thousands annually.

Hmm..really?

I mean annual check up for family of 4..say at $200 each would be about $800. Now with kids if they get sick a couple times a year, add another $800 maybe....so, $1600 a year for routine health is too much to expect a family to save for?

And..if we did what I was saying and go back to where insurance is only major medical, catastrophic insurance, people would be shopping around for Dr.s and not have middle men HMO's and the like....medicine was MUCH cheaper for routine care 30-40 years ago, even if you count for inflation. It is all the insurance covers everything and HMO's that drove the prices up.

Right now, one of the things that is trending, is groups of doctors that cover full range of the human anatomy are banding together and selling shares in health club type thing...you pay x annually and you're covered for most of your health needs.

If this type thing were allowed to grow, it might solve a LOT of the problems for routine care.

Comment Re:Unrealistic for you, maybe (Score 0) 323

If "provide for the common defense" can be used to justify spending as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined then perhaps "promote the general Welfare" might be considered to include keeping the citizens of the country healthy.

Well, that provide for general welfare, has to be taken in the meaning of the day, not as "welfare" as we think of it today. Basically general welfare as used in the constitution was defined as the overall state of wellbeing of the nation as a whole.

This also was tied in with taxation, for the needs of the US to keep the union of the states strong, and to be able to fund the specific, limited enumerated responsibilities of the Fed. government.

It really didn't mean that the Feds were responsible for the health and happiness of the individual citizens, but for the health of the union, which then would lead to the states serving the needs of their citizens. In general that is...

Comment That's government for you (Score 1) 79

When you keep your data in the cloud, and don't keep backups on hand, you're at the mercy of the powers to be

Indeed. And the even bigger picture here is that the Government — the single biggest "power that is" — is the primary source of problems. Every interaction with it — be it the TSA agents, the police (even if they aren't after you), the DMV, a hospital, or even the Post Office — carry a high risk of being unpleasant if not outright horrifying. Having an uneventful encounter with these officials is the surprise, not the other way around.

Folks demanding, government takes over this or that are either idiots or hope to profit personally without being subject of the takeover themselves.

Comment Re:Cry me a river (Score 1) 253

Sometimes being an a-hole is a sign of metal illness as well. I think we should all slow down and not be quick to judge.

Sometimes it's a sign of having a realistic outlook on things and not sugar coating them, too.

It's usually a sign of having a rather sheltered existence and an entitled attitude, without ever having been in his position.

Comment Truth about Standard Oil (Score 1) 143

Turns out that they did indeed move in with lower prices, and that their competitors fled, but they kept the lower prices.

Well, whatever they actually did, they were accused of jacking their prices back up after driving the competition away.

This is one of those cases, when the facts do not really matter, ha-ha, only the public perception does...

Slashdot Top Deals

You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...