|
I'm hope you payed well...
|
|
|
|
|
Chris' standard rate. If I do a good job he doesn't send Sean round in his Mankini outfit.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought there used to be a collaboration forum here.
I imagine most of us do non work projects but they tend to single person stuff (mine certainly are) but would be interested in larger projects. Mind you I have about 6 of them that have never been completed
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Good call, I'll have a go there and see what I get.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure I am following you. Can you provide an example.
To me a project has several parts/steps/phases/??
o Analysis
o Design
o Coding
o Testing
o ??
All of these are controlled by project management.
o Reviewing the phases above on-going
o Adds/changes/deletes
o etc.
Do you just want to assign coding classes and objects? Find help with testing? or ??
"Courtesy is the product of a mature, disciplined mind ... ridicule is lack of the same - DPM"
|
|
|
|
|
Typically I have all the analysis and design done, its the coding that I would need help with.
For example, I'm working on a scripting project similar to NoFlow/FlowHub, I have a good Version 1 working in WinForms, I'm working on Version 2 and would like to have the new editor in WPF but I don't have a lot of WPF skill (know the basics, haven't done anything of this level), so I need help from a WPF dev who can help guide me. I spec'd WPF for this version because it handles a lot of the fancy features a lot better than WF.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron;
Would love to help. I am reaaly not a WPF expert either. I use WinForms and create my own WPF-like objects where needed. I may be open to testing though if that helps.
Cheers!
"Courtesy is the product of a mature, disciplined mind ... ridicule is lack of the same - DPM"
|
|
|
|
|
Send me an email so I can keep your info handy, use the Email link below my post.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
When you open a new incognito window in Chrome, it has always had an informational page that says:
Quote: Going incognito doesn't affect the behavior of other people, servers, or software. Be wary of:
- Websites that collect or share information about you
- Internet service providers or employers that track the pages you visit
- Malicious software that tracks your keystrokes in exchange for free smileys
- Surveillance by secret agents [emphasis added]
- People standing behind you
So, it seems they have been warning us about the NSA all along?
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
or they are refering to thier own snoopers
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote: or they are refering to thier own snoopers
Maybe both!
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
groovy!
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
They are everywhere[^]
Never underestimate the power of stupid things in large numbers
--- Serious Sam
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you! I thought of him when I first read the post.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the stories clogging my RSS feeds this morning was the court overturning the FCC's net neutrality stance. Let me first say that I have not studied this matter and don't know what the facts are on either side of the street. What I do know is that it caused the Internet to gnaw on its own ankle for the better part of the morning.
So here's my question. Although I'm in favor of net neutrality conceptually, from a more pragmatic perspective it seems to me that the wires I get to use in order to interact with the Internet, at least in America, belong to companies. I get to use them because I pay them for the service, but it's their choice what service to provide and how much to charge. They bought the materials and paid to have them installed. Unless the government decides to take over an industry and seize the companies' assets, does it really have the right to tell a given company what it can do with the wires that it owns?
Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone played fair, and I'm in favor of such an idealized landscape. That said, telling a company how to run its business strikes me as unfair to the company.
It's a complex issue with many points of view (and I have no interest in discussing partisan politics of any kind), but I was thinking about that this morning. The Internet howls that this is a travesty, but it seems to me that it's not really that simple. Was just wondering if I'm alone in considering how sovereign the property of a company is, as well as its business practices (providing it doesn't break any laws).
modified 16-Jan-14 11:13am.
|
|
|
|
|
I think one of the main points is that only the big companies will be able to afford the expected exorbitant fees they are going to charge for a 'fast' connection, so small companies and start ups are basically going to get squeezed out.
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
You're probably right, but that's the way a free market works.
|
|
|
|
|
I would be curious if Verizon owned the land upon which their networks travel or are they offered easements by the government. In this case the market would not be entirely free.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a particularly good question. If the government offers the telecom/power/cable companies special protection/access, then there is a question of if that creates a further societal requirement for those industries.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's a free market and capitalism. But it's not always that simple.
We (in the U.S.) have state laws that prevent gasoline from being sold too cheaply so other mom-and-pop stations can compete with the big boys. In many states it's illegal to sell items below cost in stores. This effectively prevents Wal-Mart from undercutting everyone in town until they are the only ones left. We see lawsuits against price fixing in books taken against Apple. There are dozens of examples like this.
My point is that state and federal governments have many rules in place on what type of services can be provided, what must be included in those services, and also the price those services can cost. I see no reason they should not do the same to the Internet providers. That's just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes.. maybe so. but do you use google?
The way the net neutrality was written would prevent your browser from EVER GOING TO GOOGLE or probably bing or any other site that has a reference to a copyrighted image that could be downloaded and used in a school project by your kids - who didn't pay the copyright fee.
The bill is SCARY. It should not be allowed. The copyright laws are enough.
Net Neutrality will put us all in an Orwellian society (assuming you dont think that the governmnet's little project in Utah that captures EVERYTHING YOU DO ON THE ITERNET into a GIANT DATAWARHOUSE for analysis and datamining has not already done so.
The thought police are living with us today and this just gives them more power than ever.
Net Neutrailty is a VERY VERY SCARY thing. KILL THE BILL!
|
|
|
|
|
You're thinking of SOPA, not Net Neutrality. NN is pretty much the polar opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
gardnerp wrote: In many states it's illegal to sell items below cost in stores.
And laws against price gouging as well.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that Internet carriers are very close to a monopoly in most places. In large cities, there may be two or even three carriers, but they are so large and so much in control of so many types of communications in so many places, that they will inevitably establish similar restrictive rules that gives the consumer or the start-up no real choice at all. The free market is not always free. And that is why regulations are needed.
|
|
|
|