Today I found myself in a requirements database where a small group of people had come up with a priority scheme composed of three levels: Very Important, Must Do, and Critical. And I was stumped: what is the relative priority of these terms? I, as it turns out, wasn’t the only one confused by this. I did appear to be the first one outside of the core group to raise my hand and ask the question. (I have the answer, but I’ll leave it as a guessing game in the comments for people).
User Experience (UX) is important on many levels, some times surprising ones. Reusing words that people think they understand in ways they don’t causes a lot of confusion and adds a lot of confusion (and thus waste) to systems. I did propose that priority words were annotated with a number, so those outside the core could get a handle on what’s going on, which was a well received comment, and will go into the next version of this tool.
Many Java developers have vowed to fight back against the unwelcome opening of their open source. League of Agile Methodology Experts (LAME) spokesperson Billy Blackburn says that work has begun on a new, even more complicated Java build system that will refuse to link in Opened Source Java code. The new build system will be released as soon as several third-party Java library vendors can refactor their code to make certain classes more reusable. Blackburn declined to describe these refactorings, claiming it was “none of y’all’s business.”
Guy Faulkner, a 51-year-old Python developer in Seattle, was amused by the Wikileaks announcement. “When Python developers release Open Source code, they are saying: Here, I worked hard on this. I hope you like it. Use it however you think best. Some stuff is documented as being subject to change in the future, but we’re all adults here so use your best judgment.”
Faulkner shook his head sadly. “Whereas Java developers who release Open Source are code are saying: Here, I worked hard on this. I hope you like it. But use it exactly how I tell you to use it, because fuck you, it’s my code. I’ll decide who’s the goddamn grown-up around here.”
Which is even funnier because I was having exactly this conversation last night at the HV Programmers Meetup.
“For 40 years, we have worked tirelessly to ensure the health and safety of our natural environment,” a visibly angered EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters. “But this can only work when it’s a give-and-take. If the environment won’t even meet us halfway by regenerating a rain forest or two, or pumping out some clean air and water every once in a while, then what’s the point of us trying?”
SILVER SPRING, MD—Frustrated by continued demands from viewers for more
awesome and extreme programming, Science Channel president Clark
Bunting told reporters Tuesday that his cable network was “completely
incapable” of watering down science any further than it already had.
“Look, we’ve tried, we really have, but it’s simply not possible to set
the bar any lower,” said a visibly exhausted Bunting, adding that he
“could not in good conscience” make science any more mindless or
insultingly juvenile. “We already have a show called Really Big Things, which is just ridiculous if you think about it, and one called Heavy Metal Taskforce, which I guess deals with science on some distant level, though I don’t know what it is. Plus, there’s Punkin Chunkin.”
“Punkin Chunkin, for Christ’s sake,” added Bunting,
referring to the popular program in which contestants launch oversized
pumpkins into the air using catapults. “What more do you people want?”
The entire article is hilarious, go read it. Seriously, this is how I typically feel when I see stuff coming through on any of the Discovery properties. The History channel isn’t doing much better of late either.
John Hodgman was the headliner at the White House Correspondent’s dinner last night, and the intertubes have his speech up already. It’s classic Hodgman, both humorous and meaningful. Check it out on the ‘tube.
