I had a meeting today with someone I'd never met before, and as I headed to the meeting, I checked my Treo to find I didn't know where it was really taking place. That's because the meeting location read, "My Office". Aagh!
If I created the appointment, then that means my office, 43/4311. I don't do that, though, after the first time I couldn't find a meeting because the location was given as "My Office." So that meant it was the office of the person I was meeting. Thank goodness it was only two of us, as the options would have been expanding rapidly. It was also fortunate that I had brought my laptop so I could look up the person's office and find the meeting.
It may seem a little thing, but a location for a meeting that doesn't assume a bunch of knowledge on the part of the other person seems like an important thing to do.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Hiatus
In point of fact, I did not abandon my blog. Rather, I went on vacation to Hawaii, and I was gone for some time without any consistent access to the Internet. I'm back, though, so I have a new post for you momentarily. I did notice, though, that Raymond Chen's blog includes posts from while he's on vacation, with a note at the end of each post that is was "prerecorded." What an overachiever!
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Starbucks reprised
I anticipated, and received right on cue, an anti-corporation blog-comment response where one man's huge success is diminished as merely selfish and harmful to others, no matter how much wealth and well-being he has brought to the many, many people who jumped on that bandwagon toward greater financial security.
(For email readers, here's a link to post and comment: http://darktortoise.blogspot.com/2004/10/starbucks-ceo-to-retire.html#comments)
Six thousand new shops means some 25,000 new jobs for baristas, that is more employment for people who could otherwise be on welfare. On top of that, it's sucked endless money out of the "rich" people who have become addicted and funnelled much of it to those same newly employed individuals and middle class investors around the world - and those rich people have liked it. Why would anyone rooting for the little guy have a problem with that?
Also, while a press release, consider the following, a single example of corporate outreach to "the little guy." Perhaps a snap judgement to find Starbucks and Orin Smith objectionable, applying knee-jerk labels to them, reducing them to mere symbols, then discarding them out of hand is perhaps exactly what others find unacceptable when it's done the other way?
Don't get me wrong, Ian has a right to his opinion, but I don't think the criticism holds up under scrutiny.
(For email readers, here's a link to post and comment: http://darktortoise.blogspot.com/2004/10/starbucks-ceo-to-retire.html#comments)
Six thousand new shops means some 25,000 new jobs for baristas, that is more employment for people who could otherwise be on welfare. On top of that, it's sucked endless money out of the "rich" people who have become addicted and funnelled much of it to those same newly employed individuals and middle class investors around the world - and those rich people have liked it. Why would anyone rooting for the little guy have a problem with that?
Also, while a press release, consider the following, a single example of corporate outreach to "the little guy." Perhaps a snap judgement to find Starbucks and Orin Smith objectionable, applying knee-jerk labels to them, reducing them to mere symbols, then discarding them out of hand is perhaps exactly what others find unacceptable when it's done the other way?
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, D.C., NEW YORK and BOSTON; July 29, 2002 -
Starbucks Coffee Company (Nasdaq:
SBUX), the Ford Foundation, Oxfam America and CEPCO (Oaxacan State Coffee
Producers Network), announced today their collaboration in a unique pilot
project to help small-scale Mexican coffee producers expand their access to the
global marketplace and increase the availability of high quality Fair Trade
certified coffee. This collaboration aims to enhance the livelihood and
capabilities of small-scale coffee farmers and simultaneously improve the
experience of coffee drinkers. "Producing high quality coffee, consistently and
in sufficient quantity to meet the requirements of the specialty coffee industry
is key to the survival of small farmer organizations in Central America and
Mexico," said Orin Smith, president and CEO of Starbucks.
Don't get me wrong, Ian has a right to his opinion, but I don't think the criticism holds up under scrutiny.
Starbucks CEO to Retire
Orin Smith has been CEO of Starbucks for four years. He's announced he's retiring next March 31. I've read that in those four years, Starbucks has gone from 2500 to 8500 locations. That's 4.5 new locations every day! Mr. Smith is apparently incredibly effective and his retirement is undoubtedly well-deserved. Congratulations to him.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The X Prize
http://www.wtnxprize.org/
The link above is to the WTN X Prize site, dominated by a form where you can suggest what X Prizes should be awarded. This is one of the coolest endeavors ever! An X Prize was just won by a group that made a second successful launch of SpaceShipOne, a totally privately funded spaceflight. The idea was that by offering a prize for achieving a truly innovative result in a given area, there would be greater incentive for individuals to pursue that result - enough incentive to make that result truly happen at all or at least happen earlier.
This is how innovation should be encouraged, rather than the current standard of government research grants. If the money that was being offered for grants today was instead offered as a prize for success, there would be people that would find the motivation to do it. I don't think government necessarily needs to be the source of the funding of the prizes, but I'd sure feel better about the expenditure if it was how it was done. That's about accountability.
As an example, there was a court decision recently (today?) by the 9th Circuit Court that the Army Corps of Engineers is already doing everything it can to keep water temperatures down in order to lessen impact of dams on the Snake River with regard to endangered salmon runs. Environmentalists were not happy. But what if there had a been an award for coming up with a dam engineering design that would have a zero-degree impact on water temperatures? Wouldn't that be much more effective than simply fighting in court?
As one last thought on this topic, isn't Google Answers (http://answers.google.com/answers/), itself another very cool idea, a fine example of this on a smaller scale?
The link above is to the WTN X Prize site, dominated by a form where you can suggest what X Prizes should be awarded. This is one of the coolest endeavors ever! An X Prize was just won by a group that made a second successful launch of SpaceShipOne, a totally privately funded spaceflight. The idea was that by offering a prize for achieving a truly innovative result in a given area, there would be greater incentive for individuals to pursue that result - enough incentive to make that result truly happen at all or at least happen earlier.
This is how innovation should be encouraged, rather than the current standard of government research grants. If the money that was being offered for grants today was instead offered as a prize for success, there would be people that would find the motivation to do it. I don't think government necessarily needs to be the source of the funding of the prizes, but I'd sure feel better about the expenditure if it was how it was done. That's about accountability.
As an example, there was a court decision recently (today?) by the 9th Circuit Court that the Army Corps of Engineers is already doing everything it can to keep water temperatures down in order to lessen impact of dams on the Snake River with regard to endangered salmon runs. Environmentalists were not happy. But what if there had a been an award for coming up with a dam engineering design that would have a zero-degree impact on water temperatures? Wouldn't that be much more effective than simply fighting in court?
As one last thought on this topic, isn't Google Answers (http://answers.google.com/answers/), itself another very cool idea, a fine example of this on a smaller scale?
[Politics] No Draft Here
It's amazing to me the agitation over the idea that Republicans are pushing for a new military draft, under the circumstances. Is there no fact-checking at all any more?
The draft bill in the House was put forth by Democrat Charlie Rangel and defeated 402-2. What's truly remarkable is that not only did every Republican vote against it (the only two votes for it were from Democrats) but that Rangel didn't even vote for his own bill. You have to wonder, did Rangel get the bill up for a vote in the House just to have a topic Democrats could attack Republicans about, counting on the lack of fact checking (and lack of proper mainstream reporting) to hide the source?
One would hope that this is now a dead issue after the clear defeat of the bill that was likely never expected to pass in the first place. Who needs another red herring?
The draft bill in the House was put forth by Democrat Charlie Rangel and defeated 402-2. What's truly remarkable is that not only did every Republican vote against it (the only two votes for it were from Democrats) but that Rangel didn't even vote for his own bill. You have to wonder, did Rangel get the bill up for a vote in the House just to have a topic Democrats could attack Republicans about, counting on the lack of fact checking (and lack of proper mainstream reporting) to hide the source?
One would hope that this is now a dead issue after the clear defeat of the bill that was likely never expected to pass in the first place. Who needs another red herring?
Monday, October 04, 2004
Correction: Cat Stevens
I'd mentioned Cat Stevens as the stage name of Steve Adams, which is not entirely correct. Olympia had pointed out to me that she was sure he was Greek and had a Greek name, and she is correct. His birth name was Steven Georgiou, but his earliest performances were under the more marketable name of Steve Adams. Only later did he take up the name Cat Stevens.
So the progression is Steven Georgiou performed first as Steve Adams, then as Cat Stevens, then took up Islam, rejecting his past music, and took the name Yusuf Islam, then eventually put out more (this time Islamic) music under the Yusuf Islam name.
His story has a good synopsis here:
http://www.yusufislam.org.uk/article3awwcat.shtml
It's also good to read his (brief) condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, although there still seem to be quite a few questions about his activities with various groups of dubious agenda.
So the progression is Steven Georgiou performed first as Steve Adams, then as Cat Stevens, then took up Islam, rejecting his past music, and took the name Yusuf Islam, then eventually put out more (this time Islamic) music under the Yusuf Islam name.
His story has a good synopsis here:
http://www.yusufislam.org.uk/article3awwcat.shtml
It's also good to read his (brief) condemnation of the 9/11 attacks, although there still seem to be quite a few questions about his activities with various groups of dubious agenda.
[Politics] Good Reporting on CNS
Look at this article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
While I doubt that this article is going to change anyone's mind about it's topic (WMDs in Iraq and Iraqi connections to terrorism), I think the reporting is quite good and an interesting contrast to the recent brouhaha about Dan Rather and CBS News. I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind because even if we suddenly found a secret stash of WMDs in downtown Baghdad, there'd be plenty of people prepared to say, "Put there by whom?"
Note though, that this article, while not revealing by name the source of the documents they've been given, goes to great lengths right up front to discuss the experts that have been consulted on authenticity and what those experts said. Reading it, I found myself thinking, "Wow, I guess even if CBS didn't learn much from their recent experiences, it appears that either this guy did or he already knew how to demonstrate credibility."
I think I'll have to pay more attention to CNSNews.com now. I'm impressed.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
While I doubt that this article is going to change anyone's mind about it's topic (WMDs in Iraq and Iraqi connections to terrorism), I think the reporting is quite good and an interesting contrast to the recent brouhaha about Dan Rather and CBS News. I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind because even if we suddenly found a secret stash of WMDs in downtown Baghdad, there'd be plenty of people prepared to say, "Put there by whom?"
Note though, that this article, while not revealing by name the source of the documents they've been given, goes to great lengths right up front to discuss the experts that have been consulted on authenticity and what those experts said. Reading it, I found myself thinking, "Wow, I guess even if CBS didn't learn much from their recent experiences, it appears that either this guy did or he already knew how to demonstrate credibility."
I think I'll have to pay more attention to CNSNews.com now. I'm impressed.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Defining Scenarios
It's been a few days since I posted, mostly because I've done an enormous amount of writing this week between writing specs on our software project and a couple of long, heavy-thinking emails to my youngest brother, Ian. I've got a few things to post about, but I'll probably spread them out over the weekend.
This week has included a lot of writing down scenarios for how users will use the website we're developing. I'll just use the code name, Taranna, to refer to it from now on, since "the website we're developing" is so cumbersome. So a scenario is a way we describe a typical situation in which software is going to be used. By having a complete set of scenarios, you can capture all the action that'll be going on in the software and make sure you develop components to the software such that all those scenarios are covered.
In essence, scenarios are a step between raw requirements and functional specifications that make the requirements more readily understandable in human terms. I've never seen them used anywhere else I've worked, so Microsoft was my first exposure to the concept, but I think it's a pretty good one.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people get badly hung up on scenarios and try to make them too detailed. For example, you might see something like this:
Since I've had to write quite a few scenarios this week, I've taken to writing much shorter ones. For example,
This week has included a lot of writing down scenarios for how users will use the website we're developing. I'll just use the code name, Taranna, to refer to it from now on, since "the website we're developing" is so cumbersome. So a scenario is a way we describe a typical situation in which software is going to be used. By having a complete set of scenarios, you can capture all the action that'll be going on in the software and make sure you develop components to the software such that all those scenarios are covered.
In essence, scenarios are a step between raw requirements and functional specifications that make the requirements more readily understandable in human terms. I've never seen them used anywhere else I've worked, so Microsoft was my first exposure to the concept, but I think it's a pretty good one.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people get badly hung up on scenarios and try to make them too detailed. For example, you might see something like this:
Bob is a systems administrator and wants to update his database server's settings to optimize the disk caching. He opens the Microsoft Awesome Console and performs a search to find the appropriate management setting tree. Finding the tree, he checks his watch and sees he has only five minutes before his leftover turkey, brought in to work in a plastic container he got at Walmart, will be done in the microwave down the hall. He initiates the settings wizard that analyzes the disk and determines optimal caching configuration. (etc.)Seriously, I've seen scenarios that include stuff like the turkey thing. It can be entertaining, and I'm all for that, but the level of detail means that a lot of people never get finished with the scenarios and on to the next step of the work. Not everyone is cut out for the kind of near-fiction writing that seems to be desired by many.
Since I've had to write quite a few scenarios this week, I've taken to writing much shorter ones. For example,
A program administrator changes the address for a user that sent them an email with the correction.Stuff like that will sometimes get feedback from others asking, for example, "What about other contact information?" While I think that it's effectively the same scenario, just another chunk of data that needs updating, I might change the above to:
A program administrator changes the address (or other PII) for a user that sent them an email with the correction.(PII is "Personally Identifiable Information" and is very carefully protected at Microsoft, although that would be best discussed in a separate post.) So far, this seems to be working well, and I'm hoping my coworkers will start to follow suit and get less hung up on the scenario writing phase, thereby becoming more efficient and productive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)