Interesting, (and frustrating) the lack of non-academic literature out there outlining the *failures* in development vs. the literature out there that glosses over failures. Almost all organizations, when they submit writings on how projects went, polish and pretty up the outcomes to the point that the project is almost unrecognizable. No one is going to write, “our project was a total waste of time and money and here are the reasons why” but that is exactly what they need to do, so that others can learn from their mistakes instead of duplicating the mistakes over and over again. Or taking on the same idea with the thought that “hey it worked for them, so it should work for us” when in reality it didn’t work for them it just got polished so much that it looks like it worked. I suppose it all has to do with funding, you aren’t likely to get more funding if you past projects have failed.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
It amazes me, again and again, how much power congress gave Bush; and amazes me even more how he continues to abuse (and surpass) the vast powers he was given. The checks and balances (like congress balancing Bush's irrational decisions) seem to have fallen apart, and that is made apparent by the recent revelation by the NY Times (who i am still on the fence about them holding this info for a freak'n year... though releasing it now does help make a case for being careful about the Patriot Act) that Bush has been spying on American citizens without any foresight! Its disgusting, and not just vaguely reminiscent of KGB stories I have heard (when I lived and worked in the CIS) of the Soviet government spying in its own people (yes, that was an emotionally charged statement, if they [the present administration] can use statements like “they are going to attach us” then I can make a comparison to the KGB). Are we at the “KGB level” no, of course not, but we are closer that form of government than we have been in a long time.
Everyone using fear and referring to emotional statements like starting *every* answer to whatever question with "after 9/11", "well the enemy slaughtered our people" etc... seems weak. Do they have to use all these emotional words (instead of facts and legitimate reasoning) to state their cases, are their cases that weak?
Saturday, December 17, 2005
And there you have it folks, you wanted a paranoid government that makes you "safer" (though lets not forget the administration flunked in its addressing American security at home). Like the idea that your own government might be spying on you, and your school work? Bravo Bushies, you got what you voted for, unfortunately have share the burden of your mistake as well.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Thursday, December 08, 2005
I think the title (which is the title of a book, not mine) is interesting by itself but its even more thought provoking to hear this interview (Windows streaming media, sorry) with Bart Ehrman about his new book "Misquoting Jesus" on The Diane Rehm Show. While i think his intentions were more to show the real (and not dressed up) history of the bible and its "evolution" (sorry, couldn't resist) I think many hard core christians really took offence. Many of the callers seemed to be slightly (though mostly polite) disgruntled christians, but there were some other agnostics that called in too. While I loath sitting down and reading books (what can I say, I'm an ADD poster child [NOT a book hater]) I can't wait until this comes out on audible.com (if it comes out).
Thursday, December 01, 2005
I have not had a chance to read this book but I saw an interview with the author. In the book he reviews/recounts the folly of wartime censorship in past wars and relates it to the present (patriot act etc). I could have told you that many of the measures/laws that have come around recently are the results of hysteria but this book seems to do a good job of showing how we haven't learned from (many) past mistakes.