So lefties, what rightist thing to you support?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Order n^2. That is, costs that scale more than linearly with personnel.

O = unit labor costs? You use strange notation, and don't bother explaining it.

The point is that you can put two companies together, but you don't have to put everyone at one work station.

In the very very extreme case, a sufficiently large company would have great than linear costs simply because their payroll would take longer to search through, since search is at best O(n*ln(n)).

Why would you have to search the whole payroll? That's what database tools are for.

[Provost Harrison]

Kuci, stop being weird and just talk...using mathematical notation is not going to win you any friends. Stop trying to demonstrate your intelligence to us.

[Kidlicious]

You STFU. You're boring.

[Provost Harrison]

Sorry Kid, I edited the post because I thought you might think it was aimed at you. I gave a better explanation of my sentiment too

[Kidlicious]

You've told me to STFU before. Maybe you shouldn't use that phrase.

[Provost Harrison]

I've never told you to STFU...you've never given me cause. Don't start now

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
Surely some reform is warranted? Damages awarded can get ridiculous, especially when causation is questionable (for instance a person who got cancer who alleges they got it from work, but also happened to smoke 2 packs a day).

Remember, these amounts were awarded by 12 people, who sat through all the testimony, and had to come together the make a decision. I get a little peeved when I see defense counsel tottling off to the news media to give a one-sided view of things, which the media picks up and broadcasts as if it were the truth.

But with the thousands of cases that are decided every day, some are sure to be out of whack...the law of averages tells you that. But then the judge can reduce the amount, and if they judge should have reduced it but didn't, the court of appeal can. So, defendants get three bites at the apple.

You never hear about the plaintiffs who should have won their cases but didn't. I was walking though Bob Hope Airport in Burbank last week and saw an advertisement by a law firm that does civil work for defendants. They bragged that they win 92% of the cases they take to trial. But you never read headlines crying: "Parapelegic grandmother awarded goose egg by jury!" It happens. You just don't see it.

[Sava]

I like to kill people

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kidicious
O = unit labor costs? You use strange notation, and don't bother explaining it.

The point is that you can put two companies together, but you don't have to put everyone at one work station.

Why would you have to search the whole payroll? That's what database tools are for.

And the algorithms to search through a database take greater than linear time.

edit: I mean to sort search itself is only log(n)

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I reckon there are some advantages of seeing software development as some sort of handicraft, but we ought to transform it into a science so we can progress forward. Afterall, I am a computer scientist

Well to get any large scale project done in a reasonable amount of time you need teams of programmers. The "lone hacker" image makes a nice film stereotype and may even work in some areas, but corporations can't deal with that.

First off, I agree that of course many projects need large teams - no question. The point was about efficiency, not overall suitability. Also, I am not refuting the overall benefits of scale, merely pointing to exceptions.

The fact is that a significant portion of the market for business software is held by small companies. I've worked for a number of small software houses supplying an industry-specific product which has achieved a dominant market share in that sector. How can this happen if economic laws dictate that bigger is always better?

To me, the facts show that small can compete in some markets with big. Seeing as there are economies of scale benefitting the larger outfits, the smaller ones must have something going for them to stay in the race.

And it's "agile," not "agility."

Agile is the adjective, agility the adverb. I used each in my post, the first to describe a 'team' (a noun), and the second to describe the verb 'to scale'. I believe my grammar is correct.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Sava
I like to kill people

You need to clarify. If you like to kill your own people, you're a leftist. If you like to kill other people, you're a rightist.

Don't get it twisted.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Agile is the adjective, agility the adverb. I used each in my post, the first to describe a 'team' (a noun), and the second to describe the verb 'to scale'. I believe my grammar is correct.

Agility is a noun. Agile-ly is the adverb, but "with agility" should probably be used instead.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Sava
I like to kill people

Then you should be for tort reform. It'll minimize the money you have to pay out in compensation to your victims' families.

Tort reform -- making life a little easier for today's busy mass murders.

[MrFun]

A rightist position on a particular issue which I support . . . .






uh . . . . . . . .









um . . . . . .












well . . . . . . . .











I will get back to you on this one.

[Sava]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


You need to clarify. If you like to kill your own people, you're a leftist. If you like to kill other people, you're a rightist.

Don't get it twisted.

I guess I'm a centrist then.

I'm an equal opportunity killer.

Although I consider everyone my peeps, I do like to kill other people. Like if someone says, "hey, don't kill me, go kill other people!". I'll say, "okay". And then I'll go kill someone else.

But in the end, I'll get back to killing that person. There's no escape.