Print Story He is Risen
Diary
By R Mutt (Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 12:01:02 AM EST) MLP (all tags)


Key:
[MeFi] = Stolen from Metafilter
[/.] = Stolen from Slashdot
[M] = Stolen from Memepool
[BX] = Stolen from Blogdex
[X.] = Stolen from Christdot
[)] = Stolen from Monkeyfilter
[B] = Stolen from B3ta
[GG] = Stolen from Green Gabbro
[BFB] = Stolen from Big Fat Blog
[BB] = Stolen from Boing Boing
[PU] = Stolen from PopURLs
[S2MM] = Stolen from Stuff I Send To My mates
[JR] = Stolen from Joel.Reddit
[RED] = Stolen from Really Evil Canine
[[:)] = Needs sound
[:(] = Serious
[:)] = Amusing
[;)] = Ironic
[:o] = Strange
[*] = Flash
[#] = Free registration required
[NSFW] = Not Safe For Work
[NSFWFUP] = Not Safe For Work For Ultra-Prudish
[(UK)] = UK-centric
[LL] = Late or repeated link
< Some reviews | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
He is Risen | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
A-fucking-men by yicky yacky (4.00 / 4) #1 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 12:29:04 AM EST
Agile software development methodologies only work because any software development methodology works if you have reasonably talented engineers trying hard enough.

Absolutely correct.

The trouble with hackers is that they are hackers. If they don't like Waterfall, or Whirlpool, for example, or heavily-codified methods, they quickly realize that bitching about it doesn't help; it's just bitching, and hence dismissable. They do, however, understand systems, so what they do is hack the system.

To change, or do away with, a given development system you can't just say "X doesn't work", you have to decide how you want to work and then reverse engineer a fully-documented, highly jargonized management and development methodology on top of that. Hence we have Evolutionary, we have XP, we have Agile etcetera, etcetera ... blah, blah.

All these are essentially paradigmatic with regards to a given point of view: Some are management-biased; some are programmer-biased; some are PTB-biased; some are legal-biased, but, essentially, all they are are different narratives and texts regarding the description of "how things are" (or, actually, ought to be).

People get caught up on debating the relative merits of each system without really understanding the crucial point that it's an ongoing dialectic between various mutations of top-down and bottom-up styles; none of which are a priori better than any other. They tend to tell you more about the arrangement of the power structures in a given context than anything else.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
I agree with most of what you say... by Metatone (2.00 / 0) #6 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:12:54 AM EST
but I'm not sure about how you're using "a priori" there. In the sense I'm used to there are virtually no complex human systems which are "a priori" better than any other, it's just part of the way those systems are, they are context dependent.

[ Parent ]
Duh, incomplete comment... by Metatone (2.00 / 0) #9 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:20:41 AM EST
Given context dependency, it's still possible to pick a system that would work better in $context than $other_one.

But of course, I realise now as the hangover lifts that this is not compatible with the religious approach...

[ Parent ]
It's alright by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #12 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:52:12 AM EST

It was a bad choice of words anyway on my part. We essentially agree in that I was saying "Given that they're not ...". It may certainly be possible to demonstrate that x is better than y in certain areas, but that doesn't mean that there don't exist p, q and r which are equally as good in the areas in question - and that's not taking team composition into account. Certain critical, invested teams may produce better software under anarchic conditions than others do under tightly-controlled ones. Maybe that isn't the rule, but you only need a handful of instances to cast doubt on the blanket application of any given methodology.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
WIPO: by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #2 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 01:52:41 AM EST
Software development: Craft.

Same as art by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #19 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:47:43 AM EST
In the older sense of the word "art".
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Poll needs to be multi-select. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #3 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 02:11:36 AM EST


Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

IAWTP by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #18 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:41:40 AM EST


[ Parent ]
The first time I saw that strip by Gully Foyle (4.00 / 1) #4 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 02:44:20 AM EST
The bastards told me it was the final Calvin and Hobbes strip.

Ooo by hulver (4.00 / 2) #10 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:29:57 AM EST
That's Evil.

It's a depressing strip though.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

[ Parent ]
It nearly was. by wumpus (4.00 / 1) #22 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:11:23 PM EST
I've seen it without the pills reference as something Bill Waterson considered as a "Last Calvin strip".  It's so true to the strip (with the original lines) that I believe he did it.


Wumpus


[ Parent ]
Anyone got a link... by Metatone (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:04:51 AM EST
to or have an explanation of what's going on with the candle? I'm feeling "curious, but thick" today.

No convection by ReallyEvilCanine (4.00 / 2) #7 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:13:37 AM EST
Heat dissipates equally around the flame rather than rising. There's no convection to pull the flame up which brings more oxygen in at the base, feeding the fire. There's also lower fuel uptake as a result since the temperature is fairly constant all the way around.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
Now that I think about it by ReallyEvilCanine (4.00 / 2) #8 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:15:34 AM EST
I should've given a Physics Genius style answer, claiming causation by the inverse ratio of pressure differentials with respect to plasmas in microgravity. Damn.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
nice libertarian link by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #11 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:31:42 AM EST
Strangely enough, the only thing that comes to mind is that I would like to be able light up a "j" without having to risk everything. Any chance you could make that happen by Thanksgiving?
Yeah, really strange, how 'bout that.

WIPO by Cloaked User (2.00 / 0) #13 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 03:59:42 AM EST
More by luck than judgement or skill in many cases, in my (bitter) experience.


--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.
What would you do? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 3) #14 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 04:34:47 AM EST
Is anybody else a little disappointed in answers to the Libertarians' answers?

They're all pretty uncreative.

I was expecting some really illegal and outrageous behavior, like "enslave preteen girls/boys and make them hold regular death-match knife fights for the amusement of myself and my closest friends." Or "three words: recreational amateur surgery."

Instead we get the same old litany of Dennis Leary-like complaints.

Where's "I want to be free to marry my mother/cat/favorite pair of boxer shorts" or "I want to be able to wear clothing made of the flesh of babies"? Told to think of anything they'd like to do which is currently illegal, this is the best they can come up with?

I think that a lot of their problem by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #16 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:30:24 AM EST
stems from a desire to be serious about the topic rather than having some fun with it. This is the internet we're talking about there. Nobody ever uses it for fun.

Unless, of course, you count the porn. Oh, and the games. And the videos and pictures friends can send you. I could go on...

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
I think of it as serious fun. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 2) #21 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 10:45:26 AM EST
While I think you're right, I think it also shows a problem with the central idea - namely that it relies on the assumption that, for the most part, some normative concept of behavior held in common by all right-thinking folks will prevail without any form of coercion. I'm not certain that's a sound assumption.

[ Parent ]
I think that depends on the group by MartiniPhilosopher (2.00 / 0) #23 Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 04:32:58 AM EST
that you're looking at. That particular page certainly had a predictable, reliable set of people who probably espouse the same ideology in some constant fashion. Were you to join their group and propose the ideas you did in this conversation, then I think you could claim that there is no normative response to the thoughts therein. What needs to happen to test this idea is to have someone here set up and ask the same question.

Whenever I hear one of those aforementioned douche bags pontificate about how dangerous [...] videogames are I get a little stabby. --Wil Wheaton.

[ Parent ]
they like the status quo by garlic (4.00 / 1) #15 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 05:10:20 AM EST
just with less taxes really.


Not really a surprise by bob6 (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:34:30 AM EST
Focus on individual property == status quo.

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Yarrrr by squigs (4.00 / 1) #20 Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 07:31:49 AM EST
Suddenly pastafarianism has substantially more physical evidence of the existence of tis deity than any other religion.

He is Risen | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback