Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

OT: Political Philophy ( was: RE: Why is "Politics" never a part of a methodogy? (a rant))

Expand Messages
  • wecaputo@thoughtworks.com
    ... Now you re into Hobbes, not Mao :-) ... those ... Mao Tse Tung borrowed heavily from Sun Tzu (as did Ho Chi Mihn), so this wasn t coincidence. The trick is
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Eric Hodges:
      >I've never been shot at by my government, but I pay my taxes every year
      >because behind every law is the threat of violence and/or death.

      Now you're into Hobbes, not Mao :-)

      >Mao didn't have to pick up a gun or fight a battle to kill people or make
      >them do what he wanted. But he did know how to get other people to do
      those
      >things for him.

      Mao Tse Tung borrowed heavily from Sun Tzu (as did Ho Chi Mihn), so this
      wasn't coincidence. The trick is still knowing what action is appropriate,
      and when.

      Thus not only does knowledge + bullets, trump bullets, but also, knowledge
      without bullets can trump bullets. Gandhi proved that -- and he *was* shot.

      Best,
      Bill
    • Eric Hodges
      ... It s pretty rare that knowledge without bullets trumps bullets, though. Statistically speaking, your genes and your ideas have a better survival rate if
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: wecaputo@... [mailto:wecaputo@...]
        > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:36 PM
        > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [XP] OT: Political Philophy ( was: RE: Why is "Politics" never
        > a part of a methodogy? (a rant))
        >
        >
        >
        > Eric Hodges:
        > >I've never been shot at by my government, but I pay my taxes every year
        > >because behind every law is the threat of violence and/or death.
        >
        > Now you're into Hobbes, not Mao :-)
        >
        > >Mao didn't have to pick up a gun or fight a battle to kill people or make
        > >them do what he wanted. But he did know how to get other people to do
        > those
        > >things for him.
        >
        > Mao Tse Tung borrowed heavily from Sun Tzu (as did Ho Chi Mihn), so this
        > wasn't coincidence. The trick is still knowing what action is appropriate,
        > and when.
        >
        > Thus not only does knowledge + bullets, trump bullets, but also, knowledge
        > without bullets can trump bullets. Gandhi proved that -- and he
        > *was* shot.

        It's pretty rare that knowledge without bullets trumps bullets, though.
        Statistically speaking, your genes and your ideas have a better survival
        rate if you're a serious badass.
      • wecaputo@thoughtworks.com
        ... True, but big tuff morons are usually bested by big tuff geniuses, and since not everyone I ve known in life is a black belt, a weapons expert, or a
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Eric Hodges:
          >It's pretty rare that knowledge without bullets trumps bullets, though.
          >Statistically speaking, your genes and your ideas have a better survival
          >rate if you're a serious badass.

          True, but big tuff morons are usually bested by big tuff geniuses, and
          since not everyone I've known in life is a black belt, a weapons expert, or
          a professional football player, I am guessing that other factors in the
          human make-up can and do ensure successful lifestyles independant of
          physical prowess.

          I just don't see it as that important. The threat of physical violence is
          certainly useful, and when I am walking to the train station at midnight I
          like the fact that I am twice as big as most people I pass, but when it
          comes to the corporate world, physical threats are rarely useful. A
          pipsqueak with a title can put me out on the street in the breadline when
          four bouncers couldn't. :-)

          Best,
          Bill
        • Phil Goodwin
          ... Does Bill Gates know about this? ... Phil Goodwin, Java Software, Sun Microsystems, 408-517-6951, or x66951 If everything you try works, you aren t trying
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            At 02:57 PM 3/30/01 -0600, Eric Hodges wrote:
            >It's pretty rare that knowledge without bullets trumps bullets, though.
            >Statistically speaking, your genes and your ideas have a better survival
            >rate if you're a serious badass.

            Does Bill Gates know about this?


            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Phil Goodwin, Java Software, Sun Microsystems, 408-517-6951, or x66951

            "If everything you try works, you aren't trying hard enough." -- Gordon Moore
          • Eric Hodges
            ... Why else would he hire security guards to protect his big fat brain?
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Phil Goodwin [mailto:phil.goodwin@...]
              > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:09 PM
              > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
              > Cc: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [XP] OT: Political Philophy ( was: RE: Why is "Politics"
              > never a part of a methodogy? (a rant))
              >
              >
              > At 02:57 PM 3/30/01 -0600, Eric Hodges wrote:
              > >It's pretty rare that knowledge without bullets trumps bullets, though.
              > >Statistically speaking, your genes and your ideas have a better survival
              > >rate if you're a serious badass.
              >
              > Does Bill Gates know about this?

              Why else would he hire security guards to protect his big fat brain?
            • azami@speakeasy.net
              ... though. ... survival ... Serious badass doesn t mean what it used to. -MAD azami@speakeasy.net
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In extremeprogramming@y..., Phil Goodwin <phil.goodwin@e...>
                wrote:
                > At 02:57 PM 3/30/01 -0600, Eric Hodges wrote:
                > >It's pretty rare that knowledge without bullets trumps bullets,
                though.
                > >Statistically speaking, your genes and your ideas have a better
                survival
                > >rate if you're a serious badass.
                >
                > Does Bill Gates know about this?

                Serious badass doesn't mean what it used to.

                -MAD
                azami@...
              • c@nautronix.com.au
                =From: Tim Burns = =This discussion brought out some thoughts on a discussion with a =customer I had last week. They (the
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  =From: "Tim Burns" <timburnsowlmtn@...>
                  =
                  =This discussion brought out some thoughts on a discussion with a
                  =customer I had last week. They (the development team) was being
                  =asked by management to hire an Object Librarian who would be in
                  =charge of enforcing reuse within the organization.
                  =
                  =I got to thinking how this could be successful. The only way I see
                  =for it to be a successful project is if the code for reuse was:

                  first off, i'm not convinced reuse is possible with xp, the teams
                  focus appears to be too focused on just the project they're working on
                  (this is just from my readings both here and from the books).
                  i'm not saying this is a bad thing btw.

                  =
                  =1. The reuse objects had few interdependencies, and no

                  i'd rather this were phrased as "the resue objects had only the
                  interdependencies that are necessary".

                  =interdependencies that were not good patterning.

                  i dont understand this one.

                  =2. The reuse objects came with clear unit tests for the developers
                  =to use.

                  definitely.

                  =
                  =3. The catalog of the objects was clearly outlined with use cases.

                  if this is so you'd know how to use those objects then i'd say that
                  were covered by the test harnii and as such wasnt necessary.

                  =
                  =I would say that for 1,2, and 3 to occur then some very intelligent

                  moderately intelligent will do:)

                  =developers will have to work hard, and they should probably
                  =practice test-first design, refactoring to patterns, use case
                  =writing, and keeping things simple as possible. I guess this is why
                  =developers value intelligence more then power. Power can decree
                  =something, but for it to work, it has to be executed properly. I

                  and you need "power" to ensure that.

                  =think furthermore, successful reuse policies are quite rare.

                  indeed, the one way i've seen that worked with minimal impact was to
                  create the reuse project area, code up your classes as per usual for
                  the current project, when you have finished it and think you see a
                  class that could be reused you move it to a category in the reuse
                  area. just the act of moving it there will probably show up
                  dependencies on your current project, at this point you either decide
                  its too hard to make it reusable or you make the necessary
                  changes/refactorings to it and leave it in the reuse area. the
                  important thing to note is that there is no *extra* red tape here to
                  get it into the reuse area. anyone can throw something in there,
                  anyone can decide whether to reuse something or not. the idea is that
                  the reuse area acts like a market, only the good stuff will get
                  reused.
                  what i like about this method is the lack of overhead, its easy to setup,
                  of course ymmv:)
                  c
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.