Bitcoin is not an official currency in any country, but as in any monetary system it has value. It is real no matter how hard you deny.
The problem with Bitcoin is politics. Every country controls how much new money comes into market, lowering the overall value of the currency. With Bitcoin they just can't do that.
It is quite lame to argue that Bitcoin is used to support crimes and so on, since its overall value is by far less than the amount needed to produce every drug USA caught. Let's try not to mix things up. :)
Bitcoin is cool and IMHO, one of the very few viable solution to a unified currency system.
That is really great to hear, it would be awesome to really read some real stuff besides analogies. By real stuff I mean situations, so all people can learn from them.
I really think this guy have had some very annoying situations on agile-teams. At least it is what pops the most out of the blog post.
He actually contradicted himself a lot of times:
- "old people": Being a developer for a relatively small period of time, but I really have a hard time talking about agile with old developers. At least is what happens here at São Paulo/Brazil.
- "stagnation": Agile is not Scrum. How about XP, TDD, etc? He says there is not much action in agile-world by arguing that people spend their time making lots of non-agile tools. Without a proper explanation of what he is talking about it is almost hopeless to try on and get something out of this point.
- "Imposing values": Contradiction again. First he complain about having to accept values. He even say that values are not important at all to productivity and collaboration by saying that goals are important. I may be wrong here, but goal could quite easily be considered a value in the same context.
I won't even continue on this list since I am just probably pissed with the whole thing, but I really would like to have a discussion on this to see in what page we find ourselves.
It is really sad to just read complains without any solutions or proper presentation of the problems. It makes everyone who really put some grasp on agile teams or tools look like a moron by offering a mysterious solution. It just looks like a TV show to me, not a tech or even a blog post.
Hey I am trying to recruit good devs in Sao Paulo, but I am kind of clueless where to start. If you get a chance I would love to chat. Cheers. My e-mail is stephen@lightboom.com
It is definitely great. Although missed this for quite some years now, it is quite pleasing to see how the language continue to evolve throughout the years :)
Great and sound idea! But the pain is already aching if this kind of thing get through: posts will be made, bootstraps distrubuted and sources will be opened and the start of the era of "Please, Take my money whatever" will have began.
Lets hope for the best, take all our money HBO.
Good note! I've (for quite some time now) just given up on explaining the real meaning of open source. Hey, Stallman is crazy enough to try and fail year after year, let him keep doing that.
The main question missed in the article, IMHO, is: Is this bad for Open Source at all? In the end no. Hey, Open Source is huge! It is bigger than it was and probably it will be even bigger in the future. In the end, I think "Open Source" is just a really bad choice of words to use in a comercial strategy.
And then the next day, we'll be surrounded by posts about the first time a person used the word 'please', and why another person continues to use please, and another post encouraging the use of please more often...
And HackerNews will have been successfully trolled again.
Namely -- Frank Rubin published a criticism of Dijkstra's letter in the March 1987 CACM where it appeared under the title 'GOTO Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful. The May 1987 CACM printed further replies, both for and against, under the title '"GOTO Considered Harmful" Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful?. Dijkstra's own response to this controversy was titled On a Somewhat Disappointing Correspondence.
